What Is The Response To Claudia Koonz's Resisters During Ww2

In analyzing resistance during World War II, Claudia Koonz creates two classes of participants. “Resisters,” such as the White Rose Student Movement, actively fought against the Nazi state, its values, and its policies. This group was opposed to the government at large. “Opponents,” however, acted to thwart the Nazi policies that affected their daily lives. I disagree with this categorization. Conflating "resisters" with "opponents" ignores German’s participation in the Nazi state and the atrocities the government committed. Koonz first analyzes Agnes von Grone, the National Socialist director of the Protestant Women’s Organization. Von Grone faced barriers and challenges from the church during her tenure. The Reichsbischof, Ludwig Müller,

She believed that the Protestant Women’s Organization was a useful tool to create a bridge between the state and religion. As such, von Grone envisioned her organization as an active participant in the creation of a new state. Even after von Grone was stripped of her title, she fought to be reinstated into the NSDAP. Her opposition to the government was not based on ideology or belief because she wholeheartedly embraced the vision and the values of the NSDAP. Her “opposition” was a disagreement with the Reichsbischof about the role of religion in the Nazi state. It is insulting to the brave Germans who resisted the government to lump von Grone into their ranks. She supported the Nazi party and the values it espoused; she simply had a power squabble with a high-ranking religious official. Even if “opponents” opposed specific Nazi policies that affected their day-to-day lives, in the case of von Grone, opposition was often based on self-interest and convenience, not on moral and political aversion to the anti-Semitic, racist values of the state. The second example Koonz analyzes is more

Religious objectors did not seek the demise of the Nazi state; they simply opposed a narrow policy related to eugenics. Again, I find it difficult to praise Germans who opposed single issues of the Nazi platform but supported the government as a whole. While these women disagreed with the eugenics policy, they turned a blind eye to the active persecution of Jews and Roma. Consider a metaphor. If I help a chef cook a meal, but disagree with him on the best dish to serve as dessert, I am still an active participant in the preparation and consumption of the meal. These women still supported the NSDAP and helped the government (the chef) create a dangerous and volatile system leading the extermination of “subhumans” (the meal). Although they disagreed with the eugenics program (the dessert), they actively contributed to the legitimacy of the Nazi state and the atrocities it committed. However, I would like to acknowledge the limitations of my critique. Germans living in Nazi Germany were faced with persecution, imprisonment, and execution for disagreeing with the government. It was dangerous and risky to oppose any aspect of Nazi