Splits in the German ruling class¶
Core Argument¶
The chapter dissects the internal fractures within the German ruling class as a direct symptom of an approaching revolutionary crisis. Its core argument is that the inevitability of military defeat, combined with mounting pressure from below, has compelled sections of the bourgeoisie to seek the removal of Hitler, who has become a political liability rather than an asset. This turn against the Nazi leadership is not a sign of bourgeois virtue but a desperate manoeuvre to forestall revolution by sacrificing the most compromised figurehead of the regime.
Key claims centre on the contradictory impulses gripping different fractions of the ruling class. The generals’ revolt and rumoured conspiracies among industrialists are cited as evidence of this fragmentation. However, the chapter stresses that neither the military nor the business elite are unified. The decisive factor paralysing them is the recent Italian example: Mussolini’s removal did not stabilise bourgeois rule but instead unleashed a revolutionary storm. This fresh historical lesson convinces the German bourgeoisie that ditching Hitler might accelerate, rather than prevent, the social explosion they fear. The text draws on the dialectical understanding that the ruling class is never a monolith; its internal antagonisms deepen as the objective situation deteriorates.
A notable polemic is directed against the Nazi leadership itself, described as “human scum, thugs and adventurers” who have no intention of being discarded like “worn-out mistresses.” The chapter argues that Hitler’s gang, having everything to lose—including their lives—will fight with the desperation of “cornered rats.” They have no loyalty to any Germany, bourgeois or otherwise, only to their own plunder. This creates a paradoxical situation: the very forces the bourgeoisie unleashed to crush the working class have now “expropriated them politically,” acting as an independent and threatening force. The chapter thus concludes by emphasising the complex dialectics of class rule, rejecting any simplistic notion that the bourgeoisie can smoothly jettison its own creation when it becomes inconvenient. The analysis is unsparing in its materialist clarity: the crisis is not merely military but profoundly political, and the ruling class is trapped by its own history.