Germany 1890–1945: source/interpretation questions

Interpretation A argues that Nazi policies made ordinary housewives feel valued and rewarded. This is convincing because it matches real policies. The Law for the Encouragement of Marriage (1933) gave newly-married couples a loan of 1,000 marks, and a quarter of it was cancelled for each child born¹, exactly as Greta Albrecht describes. The Mother's Cross, introduced at the end of 1938, was awarded in bronze, silver and gold to women with four or more children, so her mother wearing it with pride is believable. The policies did help to raise the birth rate, from under 1 million births in 1933 to around 1.4 million in 1939², which suggests many women did respond to the encouragement. However, Interpretation A is less convincing about women's lives as a whole, because it only shows the experience of a married mother in a small town³ who agreed with the regime's ideas.

Interpretation B argues that women were forced out of public life and could not complain. This is also convincing. Professional women, especially married women, were pressured to leave posts as doctors, teachers and civil servants after 1933, and from 1936 women were banned from becoming judges or lawyers⁴. The slogan 'Kinder, Küche, Kirche' (children, kitchen, church) did sum up Nazi propaganda about women's role. Hanna Weiss is also right that women could not openly object: in a police state where the Gestapo encouraged informers, speaking out was dangerous. But B is not the full picture either, because by the late 1930s rearmament caused labour shortages, so the regime actually needed women back in factories and offices and the number of women in work rose⁵.

Overall, I find Interpretation B more convincing.⁶ Both are accurate about the experiences of their authors, but A describes the rewards the regime offered, whereas B identifies the underlying reality: women lost choices and freedoms they had gained under Weimar, when they had won the vote and entered the professions. Even the rewards in A were designed to serve the state's aims⁷, not women's own wishes, which supports B's point that 'we were not asked what we wanted'.

The authors have different interpretations because hyperinflation affected them in completely different ways¹. Ernst Kohler was a retired teacher living on a pension and savings. People on fixed incomes and with savings were the biggest losers² in 1923, because by November a loaf of bread cost around 200 billion marks³, so his savings became worthless, which is why he describes the crisis as robbery. Walter Brandt was a factory owner who had borrowed money. Debtors gained, because loans could be paid off with almost worthless marks⁴, and people who owned real assets such as land or factories kept their wealth, so he sees 1923 as an opportunity.

They also wrote at different times. Kohler's diary was written in October 1923, at the height of the crisis⁵, so it reflects his anger and fear in the moment. Brandt wrote in 1950 with hindsight, knowing that the economy recovered after Stresemann introduced the Rentenmark in November 1923, so he can look back more calmly and even admit that 'for many it was' a disaster.