Hitler’s Inner Circle: the relationship dynamics between Hitler

and his team and their impact on the success and strength of

the Nazi Party.

33282538

PO53014A

Department of Politics

3rd May 2016

Contents

Introduction.................................................................................................................3

Literature Review........................................................................................................6

The Men of Hitler’s Inner Circle...................................................................................9

Conclusion.............................................................................................................16

The Personal Lives of the Team...............................................................................18

Relationships within the Circle...............................................................................18

Nazi Wives.............................................................................................................20

Nazi Children.........................................................................................................24

Conclusion.............................................................................................................26

The Loyalty of the Team and the Führer...................................................................28

The Night of the Long Knives.................................................................................28

The Last Days of the Third Reich..........................................................................29

The Nuremberg Trials and Executions..................................................................31

Conclusion.............................................................................................................34

Conclusion................................................................................................................36

Bibliography..............................................................................................................38

2

Introductio n

This dissertation will explore the dynamics between the men of Hitler’s inner

circle, in order to ascertain whether their working and personal relationships with

each other attributed to the success of the party. The inspiration for this topic came

from Sheila Fitzpatrick’s book On Stalin’s Team, in which she offers a new insight

into the team which supported Stalin and his ideology for so long.

Fitzpatrick explores the intimate life of Stalin and his men. She does this in

three main categories. Firstly, she discusses the attitudes of Stalin’s team, for

example, were they similar to Stalin, and were any main policies spearheaded by

Stalin’s men. Fitzpatrick also explores the social life of Stalin’s team; she writes

about the dinner parties that Stalin hosted, that the children of the team grew up

together as friends, and suggesting that they were more like a family than a party

cabinet. Lastly she discusses the team’s loyalty to Stalin, and vice versa. Using her

framework for analysis, I will be investigating the relationship between Hitler with his

team.

My research question is whether the relationships between Hitler and his

team had an impact of the success of the Nazi Party. There are several related

questions which stem from this, but first I will establish my argument. Hitler was

pragmatic, because he used the individuals in his team strategically to further his

power and that of the Party. This is not to say that the men were simply following

orders, which is a common conception. The team did have autonomy, and the

3

freedom to make decisions concerning policies. Some of the men were so devout to

Hitler they refused to go against his word, whereas others were more concerned with

their own personal gain than that of the Party. Therefore, the relationships between

Hitler and his team did affect the success of the Nazi Party. Some other questions

which stemmed from my initial research will be addressed in the main body of this

essay. I will briefly discuss them below.

The first section will introduce the team members, and establish their

importance within the team. We will see that Hitler’s inner circle was comprised of

men who played a major role in the party, as well as those who seemed to be used

more as pawn, because they were aimless followers of Hitler. This is important for

my investigation, as it will allow us to see, at the most basic level, whether Hitler’s

inner circle were supportive of Hitler.

The second section will discuss the working and personal lives of the team,

including their wives and their children. This will enable to assess whether the team

supported one another, or whether there were clear rivalries. We will also explore the

wives of these men, and the relationships between them. Gerald Posner conducted

interviews with some of the children of the men of the inner circle. These interviews

give us an insight into, not only the personalities and true intentions of the men, but

also somewhat into the childhoods of their sons and daughters. By investigating the

most intimate part of them men’s lives, their wives and children, we will see the

structure of the team was rather hostile and confrontational, as opposed to the

familial structure of Stalin’s team.

4

In the final section, I will assess the loyalty of the team, both to Hitler and to

each other. We will also see how loyal Hitler was to his inner circle. We can do this

by evaluating events which are telling of the motives and true intentions of the men.

In particular, we will discuss the Röhm Purge, which shows that Hitler was willing to

dispense of his men when he felt threatened or was confronted by them. By

investigating the state of the team during the last days of the Third Reich, we will see

the true intentions of the men of the inner circle, and we can identify those who

remained loyal to Hitler. We will also discuss the Nuremberg trials, or more

specifically, how the men handled their trials and executions. This will also allow us

to see whether the men maintained their loyalty and devotion to Hitler when faced

with their own mortality. Exploring the loyalty between Hitler and his men is important

to this investigation, as it is a demonstration of the dynamics of the team, and their

impact on the success of the party.

By discussing these topics, and answering these minor questions, we should

be able to assess the importance of the relationships between Hitler and his team,

and their impact on the Nazi Party. Unlike Stalin’s team we will discover that Hitler’s

team was full of rivalry and competition. Their social lives were mainly keeping up

appearances with Hitler, and there were no solid bonds between any of them. Hitler’s

ability to pit them against each other and use their skills to his advantage did affect

the success of the Nazi Party, although it was not a stable basis, as tensions were

high.

5

Literature Review

Existing literature on Hitler and his team deal mostly with Hitler himself; his

life, his personality, his psychology, and even his sexuality.1 Similarly, there works

that deal with the team deal with them separately; some of which I will use. They are

usually in depth studies of the men’s lives, with only minor references to other team

members. I aim to bridge the gap between these epics, and explore the day to day

lives and relationships of the men. Other literature comprises of discussions of the

repercussions of Nazi policies. For example, countless works have been written on

the Holocaust, the Hitler Youth, and of course, the Second World War. The scope of

topics within this subject is far too broad to list in one succinct paragraph, therefore I

will focus on the literature within the sub-topic of the inner circle of the Nazi Party.

As mentioned above, my framework for my investigation was inspired by

Fitzpatrick’s On Stalin’s Team. She poses a similar research question to mine. She

explores the inner dynamics of the team, to show that Stalin was not a lone wolf who

made all the decision. She challenges this notion and shows that the komanda, or

team, supported Stalin before, during, and after his time in power, and that Stalin

was merely the captain of this team, rather than a tyrant. She argues that the spread

of power throughout the team, along with the strong dynamics, goes some way to

explain why there was no dangerous power vacuum during times of strife within the

party. She also argues that despite the turbulent times the team faced, the team

1 Some works include Bradley F. Smith, Adolf Hitler: His Family, Childhood, and Youth, (California: Hoover Institution Press, 1967), Leonard Heston and Renate Heston, The Medical Casebook of Adolf Hitler: His Illnesses, Doctors, and Drugs, (New York: Stein and Day, Inc., 1980), and Lothar Machtan, The Hidden Hitler, (New York: Basic Books, 2001).

6

remained consistent throughout – both in their support, and the members

themselves. Fitzpatrick claims that the team did not only supported Stalin, but also

each other. Their social lives were intertwined, and their bonds extended past work

relations. Fitzpatrick presents an interesting addition to the world of research on

Stalin, thus her structure is an excellent basis for my investigation.

There are many biographies and analyses of Nazi leaders. Ian Kershaw has

an extensive bibliography dedicated to Hitler, and he presents theories which

disagree with other well established works. Kershaw also addressed the large

disparity in the historiography of the Third Reich.2 There are many contrasting views

regarding all aspects of Nazi Germany, and Kershaw addressed mainly theoretical

debates, for example the debate over whether National Socialism was a type of

totalitarianism, or a type of fascism. The closest Kershaw gets to discussing the

relationship between Hitler and his inner circle is his argument that Hitler was very

much in control of the party, and that the team were only acting on Hitler’s wishes.3

However, as we will see, some members of the team were very influential on Hitler

and his decisions, and others were sole orchestrators of certain policies. Therefore, I

find it hard to believe that the men of the inner circle were devoid of guilt, despite

their protestations during their Nuremburg trials.

As no one has really analysed the relationships of the team, I have had to

refer to a lot of primary sources, such as diaries or memoirs of the team, and

interviews with the children of the team. As I am using the framework of Fitzpatrick’s 2 Ian Kershaw, The Nazi Dictatorship: Problems and Perspectives of Interpretation, 3rd edition, (London: Hodder Education, 1993).3 Ian Kershaw, Hitler 1936-1945: Nemesis, (London: Penguin Books Ltd., 2000), p. 311.

7

investigation, my main research questions have stemmed from her work. I have used

secondary sources, such as biographies and research pieces mainly for context and

background information.

The lack of secondary sources which explore the inner dynamics of the team

creates a gap in our knowledge of the Nazi Party which may be necessary to

understanding the people behind the policies, and the reason for the party’s rise to

power. Therefore, it is necessary to use mostly primary sources, as these are the

most accurate accounts of relations between the team and Hitler. Having said this,

first-hand accounts are not always reliable. For example, Speer has been criticised

for lying about the extent of his knowledge of Nazi policy and the Jewish

extermination, as evidence has been found which proves that he was aware of

Himmler’s plans of genocide.4 Therefore, as always, we must consider primary

accounts with a pinch of salt. Despite this, by using this framework for my

investigation, as opposed to some better established ones, I will be able to present

an analysis of the everyday lives of these men, and decide whether the tensions and

rivalry within the party was the cause of the downfall of the Third Reich.

The Men of Hitler’s Inner Circle

4 Gilbert King, ‘The Candor and Lies of Nazi Officer Albert Speer’, Smithsonian, (08 January 2013), <http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-candor-and-lies-of-nazi-officer-albert-speer-324737/?no-ist>, [accessed 12 March 2016].

8

We shall begin by introducing Hitler’s team. By identifying their initial

attractions to the party, be it an agreement with Nazi beliefs or a fascination with

Hitler; their roles within the party; the policies they spearheaded; and their

relationship to Hitler, such as how close they were or how similar their views were,

we will be able to establish a basis to help us analyse the relationships in Hitler’s

team. We will study several men in Hitler’s inner circle in order to analyse their

relationships with Hitler and their place within the party.

Heinrich Himmler, the Reichsführer of the SS, was an important and

dangerously powerful member of Hitler’s team. His interest in joining the NSDAP

was sparked by newfound anti-Semitic views, and a similarity of political positions.

He was appointed head of the SS in 1929, upon which he expanded membership by

over 50,000 in four years.5 By 1934, Himmler became head of the Prussian Police

and Gestapo, and masterminded the Blood Purge, which allowed the SS to become

completely independent of the SA. The first concentration camp was set up in 1933

in Dachau, with Himmler being the main organiser. Hitler encouraged Himmler’s

efforts, and allowed him to expand the range of people who were admitted to the

camps. Himmler seems to be behind most of the well-known Nazi policies and

initiatives; from the concentration camps themselves, to the execution of Jews, to

social policies regarding marriage and family. His complete lack of concern for non-

Aryan and non-German races is exemplified in Himmler’s speech to the SS Group

Leaders in Poznan in 1934; ‘Whether or not 10,000 Russian women collapse from

exhaustion while digging a tank ditch interests me only in so far as the tank ditch is

5 Robert Wistrich, Who’s Who in Nazi Germany, (London: Weidenfield and Nicolson Ltd., 1982), p. 138.

9

completed for Germany.’6 Therefore, just from this overview, we can see that

Himmler was in support of Hitler’s problematic policies, and in most cases he was

the instigator.

Goering was Hitler’s designated Second in Command. He became

Commander in Chief of the Luftwaffe, President of the Reichstag, and Prime Minister

of Prussia. Goering was chosen by Hitler, and appointed him as commander of the

SA Brownshirts in 1922. Goering took part in the Munich Beer Hall Putsch of 1923, in

which he was severely wounded, and forced to flee Germany for four years. Goering

came from an aristocratic family, and Hitler saw potential in this. Goering used his

conservative and professional contacts to aid Hitler’s rise to power; Goering was

appointed several titles, including Commander in Chief of the Prussian Police and

Gestapo, shortly after Hitler became Chancellor. Together with Himmler and

Heydrich, Goering set up the early concentration camps in 1933. By exploiting the

Reichstag fire, Goering was able to implement social policies which stripped German

citizens of their civil rights. His involvement in the Blood Purge of 1934, in which his

rival Ernst Rohm and other SA leaders were assassinated, helped consolidate

Goering’s power within the Party. Goering was considered the most popular and

accessible member of the Party to the German public; they saw him as masculine,

honest, and accessible – at least more so than the Führer. He was a public icon of

warmth, which citizens gauged from his speeches and appearances. Towards the

end of the war, however, Goering’s influence within the party slipped; his addiction to

drugs had caught up with him and a series of poor decisions led Hitler to blame him

6 Heinrich Himmler, ‘Audio Excerpts from the Speech Given by Heinrich Himmler to SS Group Leaders in Posen, Occupied Poland’, The History Place, <http:// www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/holocaust/h-posen.htm>, [accessed 08 March 2016].

10

for Germany’s defeats. His influence was undermined by other members of the

party, and he quickly became isolated. He was dismissed from the party, due to a

misunderstanding of Hitler’s decision to stay in the bunker, shortly before his capture

by Allied troops. Despite these later problems, Goering was nonetheless a powerful

and influential member of the party. His involvement with the SA and the

concentration camps show that he was more than just a pawn for Hitler’s regime; he

was an active engineer within the party. Furthermore, other team members attested

to his loyalty to Hitler.7

Joseph Goebbels was certainly identifiable as one of Hitler’s most loyal

followers. He became obsessed with Hitler after reading Mein Kampf, and his

obsession continued until his suicide in 1945, alongside his wife and six children,

and not to mention the Führer himself. Within the party, Goebbels was master

propagandist, and controlled the cultural life of Germany. Before they came to

power, Goebbels’ efforts and successful propaganda campaigns gained popularity

for the party, which led to Hitler appointing him Reich Propaganda Leader. Goebbels

was responsible for creating the image of the Führer, and present him as Germany’s

saviour from Jews and Marxists. He was awarded control of propaganda and

communication media; he had control over radio, press, publishing, and cinema.

Every week, he would review news reels and films to make sure they met the

regulations for release.8 This way, he was able to feed the German public’s fears,

and offered a scapegoat for the nation’s troubles. This allowed the party to gain

momentum, as well as indoctrinate millions into agreeing with Nazi ideals. Goebbels’

7 Albert Speer, Inside the Third Reich, (New York: Macmillan, 1970), p. 483.8 Joseph Goebbels, The Goebbels Diaries, trans. by Fred Taylor, (London: Hamish Hamilton Ltd., 1982), pp. 46, 53, 238, 454.

11

abject hatred of the Jews allowed him to become closer Hitler; their relationship only

became closer during the war. As Hitler’s most loyal follower, Goebbels’ would have

been appointed Reich Chancellor after Hitler’s death, yet he was unwilling to live

without Hitler. Shortly before his death, he proclaimed; ‘We shall go down in history

as the greatest statesmen of all time, or as the greatest criminals.’9

Goebbels is the first member we have examined so far to have not been

directly involved with the political and military side of the party; he was in control of

propaganda. He is, of course, not absolved of blame, but fundamentally he is only

guilty of his hatred of the Jews; he hand no hand in the legislation which dictated the

lives of the people, or the progression of the war. This supports the theory that

Goebbels was not as powerful he was believed to be. We can use Hannah Arendt’s

discussion in her book Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, and

apply her theory to Goebbels. The book was a report, as well as a piece of political

commentary, on the trial of Adolf Eichmann. Eichmann was a Nazi SS officer who

was responsible for the deportation of Jews to concentration camps. She placed

emphasis on the fact that though Eichmann was a man who was considered to be

“evil”, but problematically ‘Eichmann was precisely that so many were like him, and

that the many were neither perverted nor sadistic, that they were, and still are,

terribly and terrifyingly normal.’10 Essentially, she described Eichmann as a man who

was behind the scenes, who just signed papers he was given, a man who was not

himself an evil man, but by being a part of the Nazi regime, and never questioning

9 Cited in Wistrich, p. 100.10 Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, (New York: Viking Press, 1963), epilogue.

12

the reality of his work, he contributed to the evil. Goebbels was just this; not an

initiator, but a contributor.

Albert Speer was Reich Minister for Armaments and War Production. His

autobiography explains his immediate infatuation with the Nazi Party, brought about

by hearing one of Hitler’s early speeches.11 The party offered Speer the opportunity

for him to realise his architectural ambitions, by designing buildings for the New

Order. Hitler himself was artistic, and took a great interest in architecture, thus

Speer’s architectural skills made him desirable to Hitler, and so he became

increasingly prominent within the party and within Hitler's inner circle. His

organisation impressed Hitler, and gave Speer many projects, including the new

Reich Chancellery in Berlin, and the party palace in Nuremberg. He was appointed

as Minister of Armaments and War Production, and he greatly increased war

production capacity; ‘output was increased form 9,540 front line-machines and 2,900

heavy tanks in 1941 to 35,350 machines and 17,300 tanks in 1944.’12 During his

Nuremberg trial, Speer attempted to devoid himself of any guilt; he implied that he

was swept up by the party, and that he had not known of Hitler’s true intentions.

However, for a man of his position and his accomplishments, it is hard to believe his

professed ignorance. He seems to be the only member of Hitler’s inner circle who

did become noticeably mentally unstable from being so close to Hitler. At his

Nuremburg trial, Speer managed to convince the Allies that he was not involved with

the decisions, and that he was a non-political member of the team. However, he took

on the collective guilt of the Nazi’s war crimes. In all honesty, Speer was not as

deeply involved in politics as other team members were, however he did spend a 11 Speer, p. 30.12 Wistrich, p. 291.

13

large portion of time with Hitler, and was often present when political talks would

occur.13 Therefore, we can assume that while he did not have a major role in Nazi

policies, Speer was still aware of what the Party stood for, and was in favour of it.

Wilhelm Keitel was General Field Marshal and Chief of Staff of the High

Command of the Armed Forces (OKW). Keitel served in the First World War, and

suffered severe wounds. He first encountered the Nazi Party through being a

member of the Freikorps in 1919; he was appointed higher positions over the years,

eventually taking over the position of OKW in 1938, after the death of his good

friend, von Blomberg.14 Keitel was infamous among the party for his seeming inability

to disagree with Hitler. Though he initially opposed the invasion of Russia, after his

embarrassment and loss of credibility of Operation Barbosa’s early success, he later

‘praised Hitler’s relentless conduct of the Russian campaign.’15 His sickening

subservience to Hitler led to other senior members of the OKW seeing him as Hitler’s

poodle, and earned him the nickname Lakeitel, which translates as lackey, and

“Nodding Ass”.16 This loyalty, though admired by Hitler, had catastrophic

consequences. Keitel played a key role in the war, and signed numerous barbaric

military orders which led to the mass murder of Polish and Russian people, as well

as ‘persons endanger German security’.17 Keitel was very much a collaborator with

Hitler; he was not necessarily a member who spearheaded policies or war order, but

his unyielding agreement with Hitler put him directly in charge of a number of orders

which affected the progression of the war.

13 Speer, pp. 230-231.14 Wistrich, p. 168.15 Ibid.16 Samuel W. Mitcham, The Rise of the Wehrmacht, vol. 1, (California: ABC-CLIO, 2008), p. 113.17 Ibid.

14

Martin Bormann was head of the party Chancellery and private secretary of

Adolf Hitler. After WWI, Bormann joined the Freikorps; he was sentenced to one

year’s imprisonment in 1924 in connection to the murder of Walther Kadow. Upon his

release, he became a regional press officer for the Nazi Party, By July 1933, he had

become Chief of Cabinet in the Office of the Deputy Fuhrer (Rudolf Hess). During his

time under Hess, he began his rise to central power within Hitler’s circle, gaining

Hitler’s attention and trust on the way. Bormann was put in charge of the personal

finances of Hitler, as well as many other members of the inner circle. Bormann was

able to make himself indispensable by using his brutality and coarseness to

undermine the power of other Nazi leaders. He controlled increasingly more and

more aspects of security of the regime, legislation, and appointments and

promotions. This shows his power within the party, and within the circle. Bormann

used harsh and radical measures in his dealings with the Jews. A testament to how

despicable Bormann was is evident in his negative reputation within the party. Speer

claims that he his intention of usurping power was apparent from the outset; ‘Only

now, at the very last hour, had Bormann reached his goal. Goering was eliminated.’18

In 1942, he signed a decree which led to which eliminated and prohibited the Jews

from any German territory, back up by the threat of admittance to a concentration

camp as a consequence of disobeying. By 1943, Bormann was one of Hitler’s

closest team members; he was able to manipulate Hitler into approving his own

schemes, which led to the dismissal of Goering, and the reduction in the influence of

Himmler. He was ordered to leave the bunker in 1945 to “save himself”. Bormann

18 Speer, p. 483.

15

was arguably the most powerful member within the circle. He was able to surpass

and undermine the influence of some of the most famous Nazi Party leaders.

Conclusion

The inner circle comprised of a mix of men who fully backed Hitler, who

supported and shared his views, and those who were more interested in the power

aspect of the party than the ideological aspect. Goebbels and Goering were two men

who were deeply committed to the party and shared Hitler’s views, and even fronted

certain ideas and policies.19 Keitel, on the other hand, was more interested in living

Hitler’s shadow, and merely regurgitated Hitler’s view.20 Bormann was obsessed with

obtaining power, and manipulated Hitler for this purpose. This is evident in the fact

that Bormann was considered to be the ‘real power behind Hitler’s dark throne.’21

After having read several different sources of literature about these men, I

have noticed that each of the men were, at one time or another, dubbed second in

command, second in power, or simply second only to Hitler. Obviously, only one

man could be considered second to Hitler, yet perhaps this demonstrates that there

was no clear power structure within the circle. Each member of Hitler’s close team

had different responsibilities, therefore it is understandable why there was no clear

second in command, as it were, however this is somewhat indicative of an amicable

circle, and a leader who saw the worth of each person. Alternatively, taking into

19 Richard Overy, Goering: The ‘Iron Man’, (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1984), p. 2.20 Ibid.21 Joseph P. Farrell, The SS Brotherhood of the Bell: NASA's Nazis, JFK, and Majic-12, (Illinois: Adventures Unlimited Press, 2006), p. 416.

16

account the time lapse, we can see a cycle of power. Each man had a turn in Hitler’s

spotlight, and similarly in his crosshairs. Perhaps Hitler was pragmatic in

understanding what each member could offer him and the party, and used this

depending on the party’s position. For example, we know that Goering used his

bureaucratic influence to gain votes for the party, and Goebbels used his

propaganda skills to earnt he people’s support. Therefore, one can assume that

Hitler used his men to get ahead, and was not necessarily closer to any one of them

over another. Thus, the relationships between Hitler and his men did not resemble

the familial dynamics of Stalin’s team. The majority of the team, including Hitler,

seemed to be self-interested and power hungry.

The Personal Lives of the Team

One of the themes Fitzpatrick discusses about Stalin’s team is that of their

lives and sociability together. Stalin’s team was considered to be like a family; Stalin

17

often had parties to which his men were invited, the men’s wives socialised and were

friends, and their children grew up playing together. Yet Hitler’s inner circle was far

from harmonious. Indeed, some members were more amicable than others, but the

private and working lives of the team were often stressful and relations were tense.

Relationships within the Circle

Most of the inner circle members considered others rivals. Speer was actively

disliked by most of the team, particularly Goebbels and Goering.22, 23 We have

already established that Bormann was unpopular with the party, and was considered

cruel by his peers. In his diary, Goebbels references his encounters, and often spats,

with other members of the team.24 There was certainly rivalry between the men, as

although everyone had their own role and responsibilities, power was not spread

evenly. This is indicated very well by the fact that during the last days, Bormann took

it upon himself to denounce Goering, and convince Hitler to strip Goering of his title

and powers. This shows his ability to manipulate Hitler, as well as usurp power from

others, further proving his megalomania, and lack of allegiance to the party.25

Conversely, Goebbels was also amicable with several members of the team.

Goering and Goebbels seemed to have had a good working relationship. They

agreed on many issues, Hitler trusted them to make important decisions, and

Goebbels believed Goering to be ‘...fantastic. He really is a good fellow.’26 Goebbels

22 Speer, p. 196.23 Goebbels, p. 254.24 Goebbels, p. 189.25 Speer, p. 482.26 Goebbels, p. 148.

18

even visited Emmy and Edda; he referred to Edda as a sweet and trusting child.27

Goebbels also wrote that Hess was a good, reliable, and trustworthy man.28 This

shows that there were some good relationships between the men of the inner circle.

Hitler was not adverse to ridiculing his closest associates. Himmler had strong

mythical convictions concerning the Aryan race; he ‘conducted experiments and

launched expeditions in an attempt to prove that mythological Nordic populations

had once ruled the world.’29 Hitler regarded this as nonsense, and made no attempt

to indulge Himmler in his beliefs.30 In fact, Hitler had no toleration for mythological

beliefs of any kind. He snubbed Rosenberg’s Myth of the Twentieth Century,

claiming it was a ‘...relapse into medieval notions!’31 He also berated Goering for his

love of hunting, and found humour in the team’s ridiculing of each other, particularly

those of Goebbels.32 This shows that Hitler was not always supportive of his team,

which suggests that he may not have valued their opinions. This is indicative of a

weaker team structure.

From this, we can see that the dynamics of the team were not necessarily

good, let alone particularly strong. Rivalries, desire to please the Führer, and pursuit

of power is what kept the team together, and explains how the party was able to

continue functioning successfully.

27 Goebbels, p. 155.28 Goebbels, p. 145.29 Hans Tridle, The Esoteric Codex: Nazism and the Occult, (California: Lulu Press Ltd., 2015), p. 23.30 Speer, p. 94.31 Speer, p. 96.32 Speer, p. 124.

19

Nazi Wives

The wives of the men in Hitler’s inner circle led varied lifestyles. Some wives

overpowered their husbands and were involved in the political aspect of the party,

such as Annelies von Ribbentrop and Lina Heydrich. Others, such as Emmy Goering

and Henriette (Henny) von Schirach, often butted heads with their husbands, and in

some cases Hitler, over matters such as treatment of the Jews.33 Magda Goebbels

and Eva Braun seemed to be infatuated more by Hitler himself than by the party or

the politics.

A special mention must be given to the rumoured love triangle between

Goebbels, Magda, and Hitler himself. In his diaries, it was revealed that Goebbels

was fraught with jealousy over wife’s close relationship with Hitler, as he was

convinced that the two were having an affair; ‘Magda is letting herself down with the

boss. It’s making me suffer a lot… I’m afraid I can’t be quite sure of her

faithfulness.’34 This is interesting, as not only was Goebbels hypocritical, as he was a

serial womaniser, but Goebbels had once pitied Hitler and considered him ‘...too

soft...’ because he had ‘...no luck with women.’35 The only thing that kept Goebbels

and Magda’s relationship together was Hitler, who was concerned with the backlash

of rumours their separation could cause.36 In his diary, Goebbels claimed that this

relationship had greatly improved over the years, and that they had grown to have

33 Jane Thynne, ‘The Nazi Wives’, Jane Thynne, <http://janethynne.com/the-nazi-wives/>, [accessed 23 March 2016].34 Quoted in Gus Walters, ‘The Nazi Casanova’, The Daily Mail, (16 May 2015), <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3083992/The-Nazi-Casanova-landmark-biography-reveals-unknown-Goebbels-grotesque-lothario-obsessed-fear-Hotler-sleeping-wife-propaganda-genius-myth.html>, [accessed 04 April 2016]. 35 Quoted in Ibid.36 Ibid.

20

‘...such a good understanding.’37 Goebbels was not the only person who grew

jealous of the relationship between Madga and Hitler. As we will explore, the wives

of Hitler’s men seemed to seek the attention and affection of Hitler, which would

cause rivalries and hostility among the wives.

There is some evidence which suggests that the wives socialised, though this

does not necessarily mean that they were friendly. Like their husbands, there were

rivalries between the women. It seemed that most of them sought Hitler’s affection,

thus jealousy was common when one received more attention than the others. Eva’s

relationship with Hitler was certainly a source of animosity among the wives. As

Hitler did not have a wife himself until a few days before his death, and Eva was not

known to the public, Emmy was considered the “First Lady” of the Third Reich. It is

said that Eva was envious of this title, and also of Emmy’s role within the party; she

was ‘furious at seeing Emmy Goering photographed everywhere...’38 Magda was

also bestowed the position of First Lady of the Third Reich for bearing six children.

Hitler did not allow Eva to be involved with any politics; he would not discuss

business in the same room as her, and they did not appear in public together. Hitler

claimed he wanted to ‘...protect her purity...’ from corruption.39 Though she was not

happy about this command, she conformed and lived a sheltered yet privileged life.

Speer argued that Hitler had little consideration for Eva’s feelings, and that she felt

intimidated by Hitler.40 Speer believed Hitler deemed Eva as ‘socially acceptable only

37 Goebbels, p. 189.38 N. E. Gun, Eva Braun: Hitler’s Mistress, (London: Random House, 1969), p. 170.39 Ibid.40 Speer, p. 92.

21

within strict limits.41 As such, to the outside world, she was the official photographer

of the Nazi Party; the public did not know of Hitler and Eva’s relationship until after

the fall of the Third Reich.42

Eva and Henny were friends prior to their association with the party, as Eva

worked for Henny’s father.43 Heinrich Hoffman, father of Henny, was a well-known

press and portrait photographer, and close, personal friends to Hitler. Eva worked at

Photohaus Hoffmann, primarily as a shop assistant, and from 1933, as a novice

photographer.44 This allowed her to travel with Hoffman as part of his entourage,

which of course enabled her to spend time with Hitler.

Eva and Emmy’s poor relationship did not end with envy. Emmy openly

snubbed Eva, which led Hitler to instruct Herman Goering to, basically, control his

wife, and treat Eva with more respect.45 In fact, this was not the only time Emmy

proved to be a problem for Hitler. She was a very outspoken woman, with friends in

the Jewish community. Thus, when she gained knowledge of how Jews were being

treated in Vienna, she expressed her disgust to Hitler.46 From then, she was

banished from his presence.

Though uncommon, it was not unheard of for the wives of Hitler’s men to

publicize their distaste for Nazi strategy. Henny had been in full support of Hitler and

41 Ibid.42 Kershaw, Hitler 1936-1945: Nemesis, p. 34.43 Heike B. Görtemaker, Eva Braun: Life with Hitler, (London: Penguin, 2011), p. 12.44 Ibid.45 Gun, p. 134.46 Thynne, ‘The Nazi Wives’.

22

the party until her visit to the Netherlands. She recounted her experience; ‘I heard

screaming outside the hotel late at night so went out to investigate. I saw Jewish

women and children being bundled into transportation to be deported.’47 Shortly

after, she confronted Hitler, causing Hitler to refuse to invite Henny or her husband,

Baldur von Schirach, to Hitler’s home in the Obersalzberg again.48

We can draw several conclusions from this. Firstly, we can see that the wives

of Hitler’s men had access to the world of Nazi politics. This goes some way to build

an image of what life was like in the inner circle. Clearly, if the wives were aware of

Nazi politics, then we can assume that there was a degree of parity bestowed upon

the women. Secondly, we can infer that, at the very least, the wives had social

access to Hitler. It is very likely that the men of the inner circle and their wives would

have socialised together with Hitler. Lastly, it is clear that the wives did not always

agree with Nazi policies, and could confront Hitler about this, despite backlash.

Nazi Children

In his book Hitler’s Children, Gerald Posner conducted interviews with the

surviving children of 11 Nazi leaders. He contextualises their pasts, and includes

their experiences and thoughts concerning their fathers. The majority of these sons

and daughters do not remember their childhood fondly. Their fathers were committed

to the party, therefore their children often came second. Karl Saur was a prime

example of this; his son Klaus admits that he did not have a close connection with

47 ‘von Schirach’, Hitler’s Henchmen, series 2 episode 4, (ZDF, 04 March 1998).48 Brett Ashley Kaplan, Landscapes of Holocaust Postmemory, (New York: Routledge, 2010), p. 40.

23

his father, that he was immensely committed to the party, and that he was simply a

bad father.49

This is not to say that all the Nazi leaders were neglectful fathers. Goebbels

seemed to have been a very loving father to his six children, and he was even

welcoming to Magda’s son from her previous marriage.50 His diaries often describe

his visits to his children and how he missed them when he was working. For a man

who felt so much hatred towards Jews, he displayed a great love for his children.

Hitler was also fond of his team’s children; Goebbels often discussed Hitler’s

interactions with his children in his diary.51 Speer argued that Hitler saw children as

‘representatives of the next generation’, and was more concerned by their

appearance and intelligence than the children themselves.52

Both Goebbels and Hitler had problems with the Church, though they knew it

was necessary to keep the Church in their favour.53 However, Goering’s only child

was baptised. Despite this, Hitler was not only present at the ceremony, but he was

named her Godfather.54 Goering treated his only child as though she were a

princess. In her interview with Posner, she states ‘I loved him very much... and it was

obvious how much he loved me.’55 Unlike some of the other interviewees, Edda had

nothing negative to say about her father. She does, however, criticize the actions of

other Nazi leaders. For example, she states that the daughter of Himmler has

problems with her father’s role in the Third Reich.56 49 Posner, p. 70.50 Goebbels, pp. 9, 14, 75, 171.51 Goebbels, p. 96.52 Speer, p. 94.53 Goebbels, p. 7654 Posner, p. 195.55 Posner, p. 198.56 Posner, p. 200.

24

The interviews do not hold much in the way of the actual childhoods of the

sons and daughters, but more of their attitudes towards their fathers. They do,

however, expose how the men were in their truest form. Hans Frank, for example,

was a slave to Hitler. His son recounts the moment his father joined the Nazi Party;

‘This was the moment he sold himself... It was absolutely his moment of corruption,

when he went on his knees before Hitler.’57 We can see that Frank’s child did not

have great respect for his father. We can assume that like many other men, Frank

held the party at greater importance than his own children.

If the men and their wives socialised with others within the circle, it is highly

likely that the children did the same. Several families lived in Hitler’s mountain retreat

in Obersalzberg, therefore the children may very well have grown up together.

However, evidence suggests that some children were recluses. Norman Frank

describes his lonely childhood, which he spent mostly with his father.58 Cordula Saur

attended a public school in Munich, where Edda was also a student. Edda

apparently only had one friend, and was seen standing alone in the halls when her

friend was absent.59 Goebbels’ children were the only children present in the

Führerbunker, which must have been a lonely way to live out their final months. As a

result, we can infer that the children of the men of the inner circle did not lead

“normal” childhoods, and were greatly affected by their father’s occupations.

57 Posner, p. 15.58 Posner, p. 22.59 Posner, p. 106.

25

Conclusion

The thought of the men and their wives of the inner circle attending the

Führer’s dinners, their wives passing time together while their husbands worked, and

their children playing together in the Obersalzberg paints a picture of a team who

were more like a family. However, this is more descriptive of Stalin and his team.

Hitler’s team was very much a conglomeration of people with differing views, jealous

tension, and lonely childhoods. As such, the inner circle were by no means

supportive of each other, as they placed more importance on their own

achievements and status within the party. The men’s wives fought for Hitler’s

recognition and affection, which also demonstrates their lack of loyalty to Eva, and

also possibly a lack of loyalty to their husbands. The personal lives of the team show

how much rivalry there was between them; it was a part of their everyday

interactions as well as their working relationships.

26

The Loyalty of the Team and the Führer

In this section we will discuss the loyalty of the men of the inner circle to

Hitler. We can do this by analysing the attitudes of these men towards Hitler, which

we can infer from first-hand accounts, such as diaries and memoirs. We can also

analyse the motivation for events such as the Röhm Purge and the Nuremberg Trials

to help us evaluate the loyalty of the team to Hitler, and vice versa.

The Night of the Long Knives

If there was one singular event which could be used to argue that Hitler was

more concerned with power than his team, it is the Röhm Purge of 1934. In an effort

27

to consolidate his power, Hitler ordered the arrest and/or assassination of member of

the SA, including leaders such as Ernst Röhm. Hitler purged the party of anyone

whom he took a disliking to, or whom he had come to distrust. The Night of the Long

Knives saw the death of over 200 SA officers.60

Ernst Röhm was leader of the SA. In the early years, Röhm was a close ally

of Hitler’s, and stood alongside him during the Munich Putsch. However, in the

1930s, Röhm posed a lot of problems for Hitler. Röhm thought Hitler had gone soft,

and had not appropriately rewarded the SA for their aid in the party’s rise to power.61

Alongside talks of a ‘second revolution’ headed by the SA, Röhm wanted to merge

the army and the SA with him in command, which alarmed both the army and the

industrialists and businessmen that were in support of the Party.62

Hitler was not the only person behind this internal purge. Goebbels, Himmler,

Ley and Goering were also allied against Röhm.63 In fact, Himmler and Goering

spread false rumours that Röhm had planned a coup against Hitler.64 There was also

external pressures which influenced Hitler to command the purge. A secret pact

between Hitler and Commander-in-Chief of the German Armed Forces, Werner von

Blomberg, promised full control of the military to Blomberg.65 In return, Hitler was

promised the army’s support in his pursuit of the presidency.66

60 Irene Awret, They'll Have to Catch Me First: An Artist's Coming of Age in the Third Reich, (Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press, 2004), p. 58.61 Rupert Colley, Nazi Germany In An Hour, (London: William Collins, 2013), p. 36.62 Ibid.63 Overy, p. 28.64 Glenn B. Infield, Leni Riefenstahl: The Fallen Film Goddess, (London: Cromwell, 1976), p. 69.65 Colley, p. 15.66 Ibid.

28

The Night of the Long Knives is an example of a lack of loyalty and alliance

within the party. It is clear that Hitler was a megalomaniac, and put himself and his

want for power over the integrity and trust of his party. The relevance of this is that it

shows that the party was not a perfectly functioning team where there was complete

trust in one another. Rather it was a group of distrustful, disloyal, self-interested men.

The Last Days of the Third Reich

The team’s reactions to Hitler’s death varied greatly; these reactions are

telling of the individual’s dedication to Hitler. Firstly, we must establish the nature of

the team’s state. The team was aware of the need for surrender, therefore the

sentiment of defeat was apparent. Goering had been displaced, and Hitler reportedly

criticised him; ‘I know that Goering is lazy. He let the air force go to pot. He was

corrupt.’67 Goebbels had already planned the suicides of himself and his family.

Those who remained in the bunker prepared for Hitler’s demise.

During his last days, Hitler became lethargic. One of his final commands

named Dönitz as his successor, as Goering had been removed from the party.68

Goebbels was named Chancellor, and Bormann as Party Minister.69 Speer was with

Dönitz at the time the news reached them. They agreed that Bormann and Goebbels

should be placed under arrest for their deceit and hypocrisies.70 In summary,

67 Speer, p. 483.68 Speer, p. 487.69 Ibid.70 Speer, p. 488.

29

Himmler betrayed the Führer and was rumoured to be aiming to begin a Fourth

Reich, Bormann used the Führer’s vulnerability to gain power, Goering had hoped to

come to an arrangement with the Allies, and Keitel ‘was hiring out to a new master’

before Hitler had even died.71 According to Speer, he seemed to be the only one who

mourned the loss of the Führer; ‘...when Hitler’s death was announced... a fit of

weeping overcame me. That was the end of my relationship to Hitler.’72 Goebbels, as

we know, was not prepared to live in a world without Hitler, despite the responsibility

bestowed upon him.

Therefore, we can see that in the final days, the true intentions of these men

were exposed, as well as indicating where their loyalties lie. It is also indicative of the

relationships of the team, and how much distrust and rivalry there was. It is possible

that it was this rivalry and self-interest is what led to the breakdown of the Third

Reich.

The Nuremberg Trials and Executions

The Nuremberg trials are telling of the men’s loyalty to Hitler. The trials are

most notable for the prosecution of prominent Nazi officials. As we know, Hitler and

Goebbels killed themselves in the bunker. Himmler took on a false identity, and

attempted escape, but he was captured by British troops. He poisoned himself

before he could be tried. Bormann fled before Allied troops could seize him, but it is

rumoured that he was killed during his escape. Of those captured, most of Hitler’s

71 Ibid.72 Ibid.

30

inner circle were sentenced to death. Speer, on the other hand, pleaded ignorance to

Hitler’s true aims, and claimed to be nothing more than his architect.73 Consequently,

he received a sentence of 20 years imprisonment. Of the other men we have

studied, Keitel, Goering, and Bormann were sentenced to death, the latter in

absentia. Goering killed himself in his cell the night before his execution.

The men’s defences and testimonies during their trails denounced Hitler and

his terrible crimes. The men who had not flinched in supporting Hitler’s regime,

carrying out orders, or gaining political power at the expense of others, were

suddenly denying their involvement in the horrific events.74 Even Goering, who had

been a loyal follower of Hitler’s, and an integral part of the party, condemned Hitler

for his ‘mass killing of Jews.’75 Some men spoke of the guilt shame they felt, and

others tried to convey a shock of the crimes which had been revealed during the trail

as if they had not been previously aware.76 Thus, we can see that these men were

self-interested, particularly when put on trial. Any prior conviction or loyalty the men

held to the party or to Hitler had been forgotten in favour of their freedom.

The men sentenced to death by hanging were Wilhelm Keitel, Ernst

Kaltenbrunner, Alfred Rosenberg, Hans Frank, Wilhem Frank, Fritz Sauckel, Alred

Jodl, and Julius Streicher. The demeanour of these men at a time when they faced

their own death, showed a mix of bravery and resignation; some even begged for

mercy from God.77 Interestingly, only one of the men made any reference to Hitler in

73 Gitta Sereny, Albert Speer: His Battle with the Truth, (London: Macmillan, 1995), p. 56274 Speer, p. 519.75 Ibid. 76 Ibid.77 Kingsbury Smith, ‘The Execution of Nazi War Criminals’, (Nuremberg Gaol, Germany

31

their final moments; Julius Streicher. An eye witness to the executions recounts; ‘As

the guards stopped him at the bottom of the steps for identification formality he

uttered his piercing scream: “Heil Hitler!” The shriek sent a shiver down my back.’78

Keitel, who had spent his political career with the Nazis living under Hitler’s

thumb, had nothing to say about the Führer in his final moments. His last word were

translated as 'I call on God Almighty to have mercy on the German people. More

than 2 million German soldiers went to their death for the fatherland before me. I

follow now my sons - all for Germany.'79 We can see that Keitel showed a sense of

national pride, and his convictions in terms of the purity of the German people.

However, there is not much proof that he was loyal to Hitler. In fact, Keitel had

shown more courage on the gallows than during his trial, where he pushed blame

onto Hitler and claimed that he was not responsible for the orders Hitler had him

carry out.80

As we have established, Speer and Keitel both attempted to push the blame

onto Hitler during their trials. They were both loyal to Hitler while they were in his

circle, but in an attempt to save their own skin, they claimed to have been following

orders. It is evident that they showed no loyalty to Hitler after he had died.

16 October 1946), <http://www.foothilltech.org/rgeib/english/orwell/primary_sources/nuremberg.html>, [accessed 19 March 2016].78 Ibid.79 Ibid.80 Ibid.

32

One could argue that the suicides of Goebbels, Himmler, and Goering could

have been spurred by dedication to their Führer; this was probably true in Goebbels’

case, as there have been multiple demonstrations of his commitment to Hitler. It

could also be seen as cowardice. Himmler and Goering may have taken their lives

as a final act of defiance, knowing they would be killed by Allied forces. They were

both very close to Hitler, they had high power roles within the party, and they both

had undeniable involvement with the concentration camps. Their motives are hard to

pinpoint, therefore it is difficult to analyse this in reference to the main question. In

any case, one could infer that their suicides did not stem from loyalty to Hitler, but

more of a way to save themselves from suffering at the hands of the Allies.

It is important to note that Goering had been expelled from the party and

arrested whilst Hitler resided in the bunker, and was surprised to have been put on

trial. Therefore, his loyalty to Hitler may have already been drastically reduced, if not

all together extinct. Furthermore, Himmler had attempted to flee from capture by

disguising himself. At his time of capture, he was in possession of fake documents

which identified him as Heinrich Hitzinger.81 From this, we can infer that Himmler was

aware of the barbarity of his actions during the Nazi’s time in power. In conclusion,

though we cannot be sure of their motives, it is possible that the loyalty Himmler and

Goering to their Führer had faltered when they were captured.

Conclusion

81 Daily Mail Reporter, ‘The Final Moments of Nazi Heinrich Himmler’, The Daily Mail, (2 August 2010), <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1299606/Final-moments-Nazi-Heinrich-Himmler-revealed-soldiers-war-diary.html>, [accessed 14 April 2016].

33

Overall, we can see that the members of Hitler’s inner circle did not maintain,

nor were they expected to have, loyalties between each other. The rivalries and

desire for power often meant that the men would be willing to spread rumours and

such in order to put themselves in favour with Hitler. Similarly, Hitler was fully

prepared to dispose of team members when they were no longer useful, or when

they stood in his way of attaining power. At the absolute minimum, some the team

were committed to Hitler while he was alive, but after his death, they disregarded

their loyalties, and focused on distancing themselves from the party – both

figuratively and, in some cases, literally. Speer recounts that during their time in

prison before their trials, the team exhibited no loyalty to each other; they separated

into groups which resembled party peers.82 From this, we can deduce that loyalty

was not a contributing factor to the success of the Nazi Party. However, the

megalomania of the team members, including Hitler, more than compensated for the

lack of loyalty; this is what allowed them to gain power without working as a cohesive

team.

82 Speer, p. 514.

34

Conclusion

The question I set out to answer was whether the relationship dynamics of

Hitler and his inner circle were important to the strength and success of the Nazi

party. These relationships were full of rivalry. Furthermore, the men were self-

interested, and many of them were interested in the power rather than being loyal to

the party or Hitler. This can be seen in their defences in the Nuremburg trials, where

the men attempted to push blame onto Hitler. Hitler himself did not always show

loyalty to his men either. He was not opposed to removing, or killing, anyone within

the party who stood in his way, which is evident in the Röhm Purge. He was also

fond of ridiculing the hobbies and beliefs of his inner circle; for example, his mockery

of Hess’ mythological beliefs. Therefore, the relationships in the team were not

integral to the party’s success. The inner circle were certainly not as close as Stalin’s

team, which was able to control the power of the party even after Stalin’s death.

Therefore, one could infer that the rivalries and competition contributed to the

disintegration of the Third Reich.

35

We have established that most members of Hitler’s inner circle were not

necessarily loyal to Hitler. With the exception of Goebbels, who was the only

member who was truly loyal to Hitler, some had ulterior motives for rising through the

ranks in the party. Bormann was possibly the most power hungry member of the

team. He often undermined his colleagues in order to gain power within the party,

and manipulated Hitler for the same reason. Furthermore, Hitler used each member

of the inner circle for their connections or skills to further the party. He may have

been pragmatic, but he did not have good relationships with the team.

The working relationship influenced the personal lives and relationships of the

team. For example; Hitler’s dinner parties would feature the ridicule of the attendees,

and the team members would partake in this ridicule. The wives of the men had

rivalries of their own, with each woman competing for Hitler’s attention. However,

unlike their husbands, the women who did not agree with Nazi policies were not

opposed to expressing their opinions with Hitler. The men often prioritised their work

over their children, and the children suffered for this; their childhoods were lonely,

and often spent with siblings, if they had any. Therefore, in comparison to Stalin’s

team, Hitler’s inner circle was less like a family, as there was a lot of competition in

all aspects of their lives.

In conclusion, we can infer that the relationship dynamics of the team did

have an effect on the success and strength of the party, but it was not positive.

Unlike Stalin’s team, Hitler’s team members abandoned their allegiance to the party

after Hitler died, and the Third Reich fell. Therefore, to answer the question how

36

important were the relationship dynamics between Hitler and his inner circle to the

strength and success of the Nazi Party, unity was not the driving force behind the

party, and the rivalry and competition of the team eventually led to the fall of the

Third Reich.

Bibliography

Books

Arendt, H., Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, (New York: Viking Press, 1963).

Awret, I., They'll Have to Catch Me First: An Artist's Coming of Age in the Third Reich, (Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press, 2004).

Colley, R., Nazi Germany In An Hour, (London: William Collins, 2013).

Farrell, J. P., The SS Brotherhood of the Bell: NASA's Nazis, JFK, and Majic-12, (Illinois: Adventures Unlimited Press, 2006).

Fitzgerald, S., On Stalin’s Team, (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2015).

Goebbels, J., The Goebbels Diaries, trans. by Fred Taylor, (London: Hamish Hamilton Ltd., 1982).

Görtemaker, H. B., Eva Braun: Life with Hitler, (London: Penguin, 2011).

Gun, N. E., Eva Braun: Hitler’s Mistress, (London: Random House, 1969).

Heston, L. and Heston, R., The Medical Casebook of Adolf Hitler: His Illnesses, Doctors, and Drugs, (New York: Stein and Day, Inc., 1980).

Infield, G. B., Leni Riefenstahl: The Fallen Film Goddess, (London: Cromwell, 1976).

Kaplan, B. A., Landscapes of Holocaust Postmemory, (New York: Routledge, 2010).

Kershaw, I., Hitler 1936-1945: Nemesis, (London: Penguin Books Ltd., 2000).

Kershaw, I., The Nazi Dictatorship: Problems and Perspectives of Interpretation, 3rd edition, (London: Hodder Education, 1993).

37

Machtan, L., The Hidden Hitler, (New York: Basic Books, 2001).

Mitcham, S. W., The Rise of the Wehrmacht, vol. 1, (California: ABC-CLIO, 2008).

Overy, R., Goering: The ‘Iron Man’, (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1984).

Sereny, G., Albert Speer: His Battle with the Truth, (London: Macmillan, 1995).

Smith, B. F., Adolf Hitler: His Family, Childhood, and Youth, (California: Hoover Institution Press, 1967).

Speer, A., Inside the Third Reich, (New York: Macmillan, 1970).

Tridle, H., The Esoteric Codex: Nazism and the Occult, (California: Lulu Press Ltd., 2015).

Wistrich, R., Who’s Who in Nazi Germany, (London: Weidenfield and Nicolson Ltd., 1982).

Online Articles

Daily Mail Reporter, ‘The Final Moments of Nazi Heinrich Himmler’, The Daily Mail, (2 August 2010), <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1299606/Final-moments-Nazi-Heinrich-Himmler-revealed-soldiers-war-diary.html>.

King, G., ‘The Candor and Lies of Nazi Officer Albert Speer’, Smithsonian, (08 January 2013), <http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-candor-and-lies-of-nazi-officer-albert-speer-324737/?no-ist>.

Walters, G., ‘The Nazi Casanova’, The Daily Mail, (16 May 2015), <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3083992/The-Nazi-Casanova-landmark-biography-reveals-unknown-Goebbels-grotesque-lothario-obsessed-fear-Hotler-sleeping-wife-propaganda-genius-myth.html>.

Online Resources

Himmler, H., ‘Audio Excerpts from the Speech Given by Heinrich Himmler to SS Group Leaders in Posen, Occupied Poland’, The History Place, <http:// www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/holocaust/h-posen.htm>.

Smith, K., ‘The Execution of Nazi War Criminals’, (Nuremberg Gaol, Germany16 October 1946), <http://www.foothilltech.org/rgeib/english/orwell/primary_sources/nuremberg.html>.

Thynne, J., ‘The Nazi Wives’, Jane Thynne, <http://janethynne.com/the-nazi-wives/>.

38

TV Programmes

Hitler’s Henchmen, (ZDF, 04 March 1998)

39