National Socialism was a political project that aimed for the radical transformation of German society in its entirety. As Janosch Steuwer notes in the introduction to this superb study, Adolf Hitler tellingly refused to present a specific agenda for his new government. Instead, he proclaimed that society had become rotten to its roots and thus required a fundamental rebuilding. The notion of the Volksgemeinschaft (“people's community”)—the idea of a (racially) homogenous national community free of political and social conflict—encapsulated his vision for a societal transformation that called for active participation by Germans themselves.Footnote ¹ The National Socialist project thus reached beyond the traditional realms of the political by asking Germans to change their social relations and individual ways of life in order to achieve that goal. For individuals, this radical and all-encompassing project presented a “challenge” (Herausforderung), a term Steuwer uses throughout, because they had to call into question previous attitudes and social norms deeply engrained in their everyday lives. How they dealt with that challenge, how the regime dealt, in turn, with people's reactions, and how those reactions shaped the regime's policies, are all the subject of Steuwer's book.

He distinguishes analytically among three different areas of aspired social transformation, all of which required responses by individuals. First, the regime sought to redefine social relations by means of inclusion and exclusion: who would belong to the Volksgemeinschaft and who would not. For individuals, this meant that they had to question personal relations—friendships as much as family relations. Second, forming the Volksgemeinschaft called for individual and, not least, bodily self-transformation. Finally, the regime redefined forms of political participation, which required individuals to find new ways of expressing themselves in the political arena.

To investigate how individuals responded to these challenges, Steuwer turns to diaries. Contrary to the widespread perception that only a few diaries existed and survived, and that they are therefore not representative of German attitudes, Steuwer argues that these sources can provide, if analyzed in a methodologically reflective way, general insights into the functioning of Nazi Germany. To that end, Steuwer draws on the writings of French literary theorist Philippe Lejeune and his theories about diaries.Footnote ² Lejeune argues that what characterizes diaries, in contrast to autobiographies, is that authors do not know how the story will proceed (something they have in common, of course, with many other sources). Authors are therefore never fully in command of their material; they cannot structure the story of their lives with an outcome in mind. It would also be a misconception, he suggests, to analyze diaries as “mirrors” of individual lives. Rather, authors use diaries to work through problems they are currently facing, selecting and focusing on different and changing issues. Diaries thus document a process of searching and interpreting, which makes them so valuable for historical research, as Steuwer outlines in a sophisticated methodological reflection at the outset of the study.

In empirical terms, Steuwer makes use of 140 diverse diaries. Authors include men and women, Jews and non-Jews, ardent National Socialist, enemies of the regime and those who struggled to come to terms with the political changes, as well as urbanites and people from small villages. Reading diaries is extremely challenging, as Steuwer emphasizes: authors allude to incidents or people with which or with whom today's readers are not familiar, and they do not offer any coherent narrative, which makes necessary a careful and intense reading. It is all the more impressive that Steuwer read through 140 diaries of various lengths. Finally, he is careful to note that the authors of diaries do not always use them to reflect on questions that interest historians per se. They might discuss personal feelings, love relations, or loneliness, but not political developments. Mary Fulbrook's conclusion, that authors did not register political events, such as the November 1938 pogroms, because they talked only about their own feelings, is thus misleading, he claims.Footnote ³ The diary might simply not have been the place to discuss such issues.

The book comprises three main parts divided into eight chapters that address the distinct challenges individuals faced. The first chapter deals with how Germans reacted to the Nazis’ rise to power. Not surprisingly, communists and social democrats suffered from the destruction of the social structures that constituted their local political milieus, whereas ardent nationalists celebrated the Nazis. It was easy for enemies and supporters of the regime to formulate a clear political position, whereas others had to struggle much more to do so. Those more ambivalent Germans searched for and found ways to transform initial skepticism or outright hostility into enthusiasm for the new regime, thereby trying to create a sense of biographical continuity that could justify why, for example, one former supporter of national conservative positions had now become a Nazi. A telling example is that of Karl Möhring, a student from Göttingen, who saw three principle possibilities for reacting to Nazism: unconditional support, neutrality (born out of a lack of interest, a position he believed could not last), and hostility. These were indeed the very options the regime had in mind: either one supported it or one was an enemy. But for Möhring, supporting the regime without critical reflection was impossible. That was why he chose a fourth option: “I declare myself a representative of National Socialism, but I maintain my own opinion and an independent critique” (92). In his self-understanding, this meant that Möhring was an ardent supporter of National Socialism, but one who did not blindly follow Hitler and his regime.

Being part of the nation and the Volksgemeinschaft required, in theory, unconditional ideological support. Those who questioned the regime and stuck to their old republican ideals consequently faced social marginalization. A similar and indeed worse fate awaited those deemed enemies of the German people. All of these Germans struggled hard to develop a sense of belonging without giving up their critical perspective. Hans Maschmann, who had actively participated in the 1918 revolution, emphasized, for example, that he, too, was a national comrade and that he, too, was patriotic. Despite his fundamental criticisms of Nazism, he still tried to find areas of agreement with the new regime—for instance, with the regime's attempt, in his view, to rebuild German spiritual life by overcoming historical materialism.

Steuwer presents many other fascinating accounts of individuals who, for various reasons ranging from Church politics to antisemitism, moved between supporting and criticizing Hitler, the regime, and its ideology. Those who refused to conform or were excluded because they were deemed “racial aliens” (Rassenfremde) faced exclusion and the destruction of their social bonds. One memorable example is the family of Luise Solmitz, whose husband had converted to Christianity as a young man. His former Jewish faith had never played any role for his family, and he and his wife had not even told their daughter about it. But when the girl presented a form from school to prove her “Aryan” ancestry at age thirteen, the parents had to tell her the truth. Even though the family longed to be part of Germany's “ascent” (Aufstieg, 172), its members were excluded from it: they could not display the swastika flag in front of their house, the husband was denied membership in World War I veterans organizations, and the daughter could not join any Nazi youth organizations despite her pleas and desire to do so.

The book's second part deals with National Socialism's attempts to educate people physically and ideologically, as well as with individual reactions to such efforts. In a first step, Steuwer argues that the multiple and, at times, contradictory educational goals of the regime mean that asking about the success or failure of the regime's educational efforts is misleading. Rather, the plurality of educational demands meant that individuals could actively choose among them. Steuwer thus emphasizes that they took an active role in educational programs. Again, he depicts a wide panorama of possible reactions, ranging from avoiding to embracing the regime's politicization efforts. But—and this is the crucial point—everyone had to react in some way.

Reshaping the German Volk thus required individuals to work on themselves in different ways. The regime's educational programs targeted various aspects of personal life, three of which Steuwer highlights in particular: how individuals related to others, how they related to their bodies, and how they thought about their personal ancestry. Not all Germans, Steuwer emphasizes, worked on themselves according to the regime's vision. But for those who did, diaries are a revealing source for understanding how the process of personal transformation worked. Steuwer shows, for example, how Germans inscribed themselves into the community through their experiences at the numerous camps organized by the Hitler Youth, the League of German Girls, the German Labor Front, and similar organizations. A young man named Rudolf Briske, born in 1915, sought to “connect the new Weltanschauung with [his] ego” (342). It was in this way that being in a labor-front camp allowed him to become part of the new community, even though he was aware of conflicts and had frustrating experiences during his time at the camp. But in deciding which lessons to take from his time there, he focused only on the positive community experience, as it was this sense of community that was, he wrote in his diary, meaningful for the future. Building the Volksgemeinschaft called for Germans not only to inscribe themselves into the community, but also to form strong physical bodies. Yet, whereas the regime emphasized a sense of community through bodily engagement—for example, in sports—individuals often emphasized their personal accomplishments instead. This did not mean, however, that they rejected the politicization of bodies: contemporaries such as Briske instead consciously shaped their bodies in an individualistic manner in order to contribute to the building of a Volksgemeinschaft.

Finally, Steuwer looks at how individuals reacted to the regime's demands to investigate their ancestry. This was often a challenging endeavor, as individuals had to dig up the archival records of their ancestors. Rudolf Briske once again offers one of the most fascinating and disturbing examples of how people dealt with the potential challenges posed by previous generations. In the fall of 1933, he learned that his sister had been forced to leave university because their father had been born a Jew and then converted to Christianity as a young man. For Briske, the radicalization of the regime's antisemitic policies meant that it became, in his words, “increasingly difficult to remain National Socialist—in particular, because we are not supposed to be National Socialists” (342–43). But this did not lead him to question his own antisemitism. Instead, he blamed his parents for the “horrible crime” of marrying each other and having children. For Briske, it was clearly a desperate situation: “Having to be Jewish in terms of blood, but being German in the inside: this is horrible. … I can only say: it's a pity that I was born” (344). Briske's example was certainly exceptional, but it shows the kind of challenge that the regime's ideology and policies posed for many individuals.

Diaries such as Briske's suggest that individuals insisted on maintaining personal ways of life that did not conform to the regime's ideology. Yet, Steuwer emphasizes, this did not mean that National Socialist educational attempts failed: individuals did not simply change their behavior, but could instead reinterpret their selves in National Socialist terms and thereby inscribe themselves into the regime. Having shown how complex a process this could be is one of the accomplishments of this impressive study.

The third and final part of the book investigates how the regime tried to reformulate relations “between government and population” (357), and looks for new forms of political participation. Reexamining reports about the “mood of the population” (Stimmungsberichte) produced by the regime's security forces and by the Social Democratic Party in Exile (the so-called SOPADE reports), Steuwer argues against asking quantitative questions about the level of enjoyed by support the regime. Instead, he suggests that these sources allow qualitative insights into what “agreement and political participation meant under the specific conditions of the National Socialist dictatorship” (357). With that in mind, and returning to the diaries, Steuwer traces how contemporaries followed the news and judged political developments. He looks into specific encounters between the government and the governed (e.g., through radio broadcasts), what forms of political participation such encounters prompted, and how all of this translated into political integration that became especially visible during, for instance, consciously staged elections and referenda.

The final chapter of this section then flips the perspective and asks about the “political” in the private realm: what kind of boundaries existed, especially in a spatial sense, that “protected the private realm against the grasp of the political system,” and to what extent did it remain possible “to live a self-determined, private life” (358) under the conditions of National Socialism. Steuwer documents the collapse of any boundaries that protected the private lives of Jews, as well as the way in which the regime intruded into the private spaces of those who did not comply with its demands—for example, by not donating money to National Socialist welfare organizations. Yet, the regime had to accept the fact that many people—even those who were politically loyal—refused to allow the regime to enter their private spaces, that they continued to lead private lives, and that they refused to adapt to Nazi ideology as unconditionally as the regime demanded.

Steuwer argues that the examples he provides suggest that the alleged separation between a political and a private sphere did not exist. Private lives cannot be interpreted, along the lines of Sebastian Haffner's much cited memoir, as a “duel” between an “unknown, private man”—Haffner himself—and a nearly omnipotent state.Footnote ⁴ Instead, the diaries that Steuwer analyzes show how their authors struggled to “live their own lives” under “political conditions that aimed at directly changing their ways of life and their opinions” (547). Germans did not simply translate the propagated ideals of a Volksgemeinschaft into practice, as the regime demanded, but instead amended them in idiosyncratic ways. They tried, in other words, to contribute to a “Third Reich the way I understand it,” as one of the diarists put it, and contributed in that way to “the realization of the National Socialist societal project” (548).

Janosch Steuwer has written an important and impressive book that should be translated into English. An immense amount of labor must have gone into the 550 densely argued pages. The author remains in constant dialogue with the relevant historiography, drawing in particular on the work of Peter Fritzsche and Moritz Föllmer, but is also highly articulate when it comes to rejecting or correcting interpretations he finds untenable or limiting.Footnote ⁵ Steuwer recounts many fascinating stories, which he carefully interprets to show how Germans responded to the challenges that National Socialism posed to individuals, how the latter either became part of the “national community” or dealt with the exclusion from that community, how they redefined their selves, and, last but not least, how they found new ways to participate politically. Steuwer's analysis of diaries does not result in a fundamental reinterpretation of National Socialism. But what makes the book so valuable is its precise and detailed reconstruction of how the societal transformation of the Volksgemeinschaft worked in practice, and what this meant for individuals forced to make choices and adapt to new political structures.

Despite the many accomplishments of the book, one is left wondering whether it was not also a missed opportunity because of the perspective chosen by Steuwer. Ultimately, he is interested in political questions and in how Germans reacted, on an individual level, to the regime's demands to change political views and personal ways of life. Steuwer is thus most interested in those diary passages that reflect on political developments or that deal with the impact of politics on personal life. Yet—and Steuwer is highly aware of this, of course—diaries also addressed other issues, such as family life, love relations, work, and religious questions. These are issues about which we learn little—which makes sense, given the questions Steuwer asks. This approach might nevertheless mean that something important is missed. Perhaps religious or family life mattered most for individuals, not the political project of National Socialism. The focus might then be on how individuals dealt with the regime's policies when pursuing their own (unpolitical) agendas, how they made sense of the regime's ideology within their own idiosyncratic worldviews, and how the regime provided opportunities or created difficulties for things they considered to be important. The point would be to deprioritize politics and instead allow for multiple priorities—and then to ask how these related to one other. This would only strengthen Steuwer's larger case, precisely because it would allow us to see not only how the National Socialist “project” shaped individual and unpolitical agendas, but also how such agendas—for example, religious ambitions—stood in the way of the total and individual transformation that the vision of the Volksgemeinschaft demanded. To understand how power worked in the Third Reich, we need to look beyond, and beside, politics.