The Night of the Long Knives and Your Source Paper

What? This guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Paper 1 is not about the Night of the Long Knives. It’s not even about Hitler and the Nazis. This guy is talking rubbish.

Well that might still be the case, but my contention is that you can practice your skills set for Paper 1 no matter the topic you are studying at any given time because the skills being tested on the Source Paper are generic, i.e. they apply to ALL sources. So, as you are developing your knowledge and understanding of a topic for the essay papers, you can also be developing your skills to read a source properly:

• identify and explain just what the source is saying, what its message is

• analyse it

• evaluate it

Q2 of Paper 1 of your exam, the Source Paper, requires you to evaluate the value and limitations of a source. You are required to do this with respect to the origins and purpose of the source, as well as referring to its content. And what are the origins of a source without context. Context demonstrates you really understand a source’s origins.

If we are considering why Hitler instigated the Night of the Long Knives, the move he made to end once and for all the threat that Rohm and the SA posed, we need to look first beyond the obvious threat to Hitler’s leadership of Nazi Germany, and look at the underlying context. Hitler had consolidated his position by destroying all constitutional-legal means to oppose him: Germany was now a one-party state (opposition parties had been banned), it was now a centralised state (governors appointed by Hitler had replaced the elected federal system), and free trade unions had been closed down.

But the elites were still in place because Hitler needed them. He particularly needed the economic elite because he needed the expertise of big business and the financial world to produce his war machine and to finance his plans. Whilst he particularly needed the army, first of all because it had the means to overthrow him but also because long-term, he had every intention of leading Germany into war. The army – its professionalism, training, discipline and its officer corps – still made it a stronger force than the SA. It alone had the professionalism, training, discipline as well as the leadership of the officer corps to carry out his plans.

However, those same elites were worried about the noises Rohm and the SA were making about a second revolution, a revolution that would both take over the economy and the army. Whilst at the same time, Rohm, backed by an SA some two million strong and mostly armed, was a threat to his own leadership. Hitler would back the German Army ahead of Rohm’s SA every time when it came to war, but in 1933 if it came to civil war, the size of the SA could be enough to defeat the army, no matter its better leadership, better discipline, etc.

Another thing that was worrying Hitler was that the head of state, President Hindenburg, was clearly dying, and if Hitler was to become head of state as well as Chancellor, which would truly consolidate his hold on power, he would have to move fast. That meant he would have to convince the elites that he was a man they could trust, a man fit for purpose. And he wouldn’t be seen as such if the SA were still an unruly problem on the streets and a real threat to the elites. Hitler could now do without the SA, its purpose was over, but he couldn’t do without the army.

Hitler’s aim had always been a ‘national’ revolution, a rebirth for Germany and a Germany for Germans. Whereas he had joined and led a Party that had always sought a National Socialist revolution, it is in its name!

Rohm and the SA wanted a second revolution, one that would put the economy into the hands of the workers and one that would subsume the army into the ranks of the SA and put control of the new army in the hands of Rohm.

A second revolution, from Hitler’s perspective, simply must not be allowed to happen.

Now, fully aware of the context (and I know there’s only four marks on offer for Q2, but remember I was working on my knowledge and understanding of the topic), let’s consider two statements. The first made in June by Rohm who had this to say:

‘One victory on the road of the German revolution has been won.… The SA and SS, who bear the great responsibility of having set the German revolution rolling, will not allow it to be betrayed at the halfway mark…. it is indeed high time that the national revolution should end and become a National Socialist one…. We shall continue our fight – with them or without them. And if necessary, against them ….’^[1]

Countering what Rohm had to say, Hitler made his position clear in a speech to early in July in a speech to assembled leading Nazis he had this to say just five days later:

‘Revolution is not a permanent condition. It must not develop into a permanent condition. The stream of revolution has been undammed, but it must be channeled into the secure bed of evolution… The slogan of the second revolution was justified as long as positions were still in Germany that could serve as points of crystallization for a counter-revolution. That is not the case any longer. We do not leave any doubt about the fact that if necessary we will drown such an attempt in blood. For a second revolution can only direct itself against the first one.’^[2]

The battle lines were clearly drawn: a second “socialist” revolution with the elites swept aside, or a time for stability with the traditional elites still in place; and, for both sides, it was a battle that had to be won. Rohm had his two million paramilitaries, many of whom were disillusioned by Hitler’s stance on the ‘second revolution’. But Hitler had the state, and with it, the army.

But Q2 also requires us to refer to a source’s purpose. For me, the purpose is nearly always found in the intended audience and when we are looking at a speech, often the more important audience is to be found beyond the audience the speaker is looking out on. This is the case in both the sources above.

For the first, Rohm is talking to the SA. They badly want a second revolution. They are frustrated that it hasn’t already happened and they want an explanation. Rohm gives them that. He places the blame on those within the Nazi movement who are determined to prevent it. But Rohm is also speaking beyond his immediate audience. He is speaking to Hitler and sending a very clear warning. Whereas Hitler’s response, given in a speech to Nazi state governors was clearly directed right back at Rohm.

So, let’s highlight the important points from Rohm’s speech:

• Rohm talks of a victory won, won by the SA and SS, but that the revolution is only at its half-way point

• And he hints at betrayal

• And makes clear his demand for a National Socialist revolution

• And that if needs be, the SA will fight against those within the party who try to deny their ‘second revolution’

So, lets now draw out the highlights of Hitler’s message:

• Revolution must not be allowed to be a permanent condition

• Its now time for evolution

• And look at how cleverly he demotes the notion of a second revolution – It was only talked about to prevent a counter-revolution. Now that is no longer a possibility, the whole notion of a second revolution can be dropped

• So that he now makes clear, a second revolution can only target hos own revolution and so it will not be allowed

• And if necessary, it will be suppressed with force and blood will be spilt

With these points we can refer to the content in our answer for Q2 and yes, I still know its only 4 marks but …

Besides, there is also Q 3 to think about and this requires you to reveal ways in which two sources compare and contrast. So, how do these two sources compare and contrast?

So, I think I have shown that I have a pretty good understanding of why the Night of the Long Knives happened, and I have developed my skills required for the Source Paper. As a keen birdwatcher I shouldn’t condone killing two birds with one stone but I think I just have!

[1] Quoted in William L. Shirer, p. 205

[2] Quoted in Richard J. Evans, p. 20