Mass Consumption Isn't Just All-American—The Nazis Had It, Too
Today, no one can deny the importance of consumption to the American economy. By some counts, consumer spending constitutes over seventy percent of our GNP, and the countdown to special winter shopping days—notably “Black Friday” and “Cyber Monday”—has taken on a ritualistic quality. Especially during a recession, economists and journalists scour retail sales figures to monitor the pulse of the nation. As President George W. Bush suggested after 9/11, shopping even constitutes a form of patriotism: buying food, clothing, houses, and Christmas presents is not only about fulfilling one’s personal needs and desires; it’s also seen as a virtuous gesture on behalf of national health.
Given the prominence of shopping in our national conversation, one might assume that the obsessive relationship to consumption is uniquely American. This is not the case. For well over a century, policymakers throughout the world have tried to figure out how “getting and spending” were linked to their country’s well-being. A striking setting for this preoccupation was Nazi Germany. When we consider a society bathed in propaganda and violence, the rather mundane act of shopping does not immediately come to mind. Yet the Nazis made it clear that they didn’t only want to build an “Aryan” nation and to colonize Europe. They wanted to build a rich country, indeed one marked by better consumer opportunities and a higher standard of living than even the United States.
Of course, it doesn’t come as a total surprise that the Nazis thought a lot about consumers. After all, the Volkswagen began as Hitler’s pet project to supply affordable mass transportation to the population (provided one was not a Jew, a Roma, a homosexual, or in any other way racially, mentally, or physically “compromised”). And the Nazis built much of their success on the recovery of the economy after the Great Depression. But most people don’t realize that hundreds of everyday products—many of which we still purchase today—occupied an important role in Nazi society and ideology. When we buy laundry detergents or over-the-counter drugs—like Persil soap or Bayer aspirin—we are buying the merchandise of German companies that, in the 1930s and 1940s, marketed their goods throughout the Third Reich. Effective detergents and pharmaceuticals were supposed to maintain the health and purity of the German “Volk.” When we buy Sanka coffee, Knorr soups, Nivea creams, or Hugo Boss menswear, we are buying goods whose stories are intertwined with Germany’s tortured past.
Of course each of these products and their manufacturers have their unique histories. But what they share is a common link to visions of Germany as a thriving modern consumer culture. If we look, in particular, at the Nazi years, we can see how marketers went about selling such goods at a time when the state was gearing up for a racial war. We might think that advertising in such a setting was the same thing as propaganda—violent, coercive, and filled with anti-Semitic imagery. But in many respects, the work of marketing experts resembled that of their colleagues in other countries, like the U.S., that were not racist dictatorships. And the companies that sold these goods felt a certain measure of business-as-usual during this time. At the same time, the Nazis saw marketing and advertising as something special—as a means of building public support for their brutal aims through promises of “the good life.”
What did the commercial landscape look like in Nazi Germany? Aside from the omnipresence of newspaper and magazine ads, companies showed commercials and mini-documentaries about their merchandise before a feature film. Celebrities like boxer Max Schmeling did product plugs for decaf coffee, while consumer researchers went from house to house asking people about their favorite hair tonics, handbags, and hosiery. And well-attended trade fairs and exhibition pavilions were filled with the stuff of everyday modern life: plastic goods, refrigerators, cars, toys, and clothes.
The Nazis did not tolerate all forms of commerce. Billboards were limited, radio ads were banned, and as Germany went on a war footing, quality products became increasingly rare and marketing regulations became stricter. But the general semblance of normality in the prewar marketplace—and the promise of future abundance during the war—did allow people to throw their lot behind the Nazis and, in an indirect way, enable their crimes. And when well-known companies aided Nazi criminality—through the use of forced concentration camp labor—they did so not per se in the name of racial engineering, but in the name of selling cars, clothing, and aspirin. In the end, mass consumption remained a key component of the Nazi vision until the end of World War II, when the dream of a well-provisioned Aryan super-race collapsed in the rubble of Germany’s towns and cities.
comments powered by Disqus
Fahrettin Tahir - 1/27/2011
It was the Nazis who first made public the fact that smoking is unhealthy.
This was an advanced industrial society which had much in common with other advanced industrial societies.
The political aspect was simple.
In WW 1 Germany lost due to a revolution by the starving population. This led to a Nazi policy of keeping the population happy by allowing mass consumption.
The Nazis were proud that 4 years into the war, until 1943, the civilian population did not have to sacrifice their high standard of living.
They did this by limiting military expenditure and by plundering occupied Europe.
Until they realized that they had lost the war.
Guy Walters - 1/24/2011
An excellent piece, and look forward to reading the book. However, I do hope that this assertion is qualified within its pages:
"When we buy Sanka coffee, Knorr soups, Nivea creams, or Hugo Boss menswear, we are buying goods whose stories are intertwined with Germany’s tortured past."
Clearly, many would infer from this sentence that such companies were somehow complicit in the functioning of the regime. Leaving aside the old canard that Hugo Boss designed SS uniforms, is the operation of such companies during the Third Reich necessarily an act of intertwining?
Today, some regard the provision of consumer goods as a means of dismantling totalitarian regimes (see countless editorials re. China.) And, to (mis)quote PJ O'Rourke, ''Nothing fights Communism as well as a Big Mac."
Is it therefore possible to see the marketplace as being anathema to such regimes?
Alonzo L Hamby - 1/24/2011
This is an excellent, informative article. I wonder, however, if I am correct in thinking it is more about aspiration than achievement. Ifthe LURE of mass consumption was an opiate for the non-committed masses? How far did Nazi Germany get beyond that lure?
In many small ways the regime probably did provide some conforts and amusements for the masses. The Kraft durch Freude program did sponsor cheap vacations for the masses at a time when vacations were luxuries throughout the Western world. At the same time, however, supplies of food were tight, and, even before the war there was some rationing.
The Volkswagen turned out to be a big swindle. German workers made deductions from their paychecks for as along as four years to pay for one. They began to roll off the assembly lines in mid-1939. It is uncertain whether a single ordinary worker (as opposed to party functionaries) ever took delivery of one.
In this, as in other ways, the German people bought into a giagantic swindle and paid a terrible price.
- Could another English king be buried under a parking lot?
- Huckabee says archaeology supports the Bible
- George W. Bush's CIA Briefer: Bush and Cheney Falsely Presented WMD Intelligence to Public
- Unfinished film about the Holocaust made in 1945 to finally be seen by audiences
- Two-Thirds of European Men Descend From Three People
- Daniel Pipes calls the rulers of Iran "madmen" on official Iranian TV
- A Professor Tries to Beat Back a News Spoof That Won’t Go Away
- NYT History Book Reviews: Who Got Noticed this Week?
- Sean Wilentz is being called “Hillary’s Historian"
- Hundreds of British historians challenge assumptions of “Historians for Britain” campaign