The imperian empire
04-04-2009, 13:47
Warning, controversial thinking and a very long post here.
Ok, I am going to ask two questions.
1, Was the Nazi state chaotic?
2, Was Hitler a weak dictator?
There is no right or wrong here, as there is no way to prove of disprove this. There are 4 major schools of thought regarding these two questions.
Intentionalist, Structuralist/Functionalist, Kershaw 3rd way, and Sonderweg.
I will explain them under here, I have tried to make it easy and as short as possible.
Intentionalists believe:
Hitler was Central to the regime. His personality drives the Nazi ideology and he is a key figure whom determines the formation of Nazi Germany.
The infighting and “divide and rule” within the regime and his henchmen was deliberate to keep overall control.
Hitler was a key influence and made the big decisions.
Norman Rich, “The point cannot be emphasised too strongly. Hitler was the master in the Third Reich.” Intentionalists do not argue the administrative chaos, but believe that it is deliberate. Infighting was encouraged and success we dependent on this.
Hitler led German people with his prestige, rode on popularity.
“No subordinate of Hitler ever imposed his will, against the wishes of the Fuehrer.” “Any obstacle to Hitler’s will was removed.”
Hitler encouraged chaos within the Nazi state with the creation of more power hungry departments. Intentionalists strongly DENY that the failings of the economy limited Hitler. Hitler had planned his programme since the early 1920’s and his unwavering ideology was manifested in Nazi Germany policy. Albert Speer, Hitler was an “inexplicable demonic
figure.”
Intentionalists also believe that the Holocaust was part of the master plan. They also agree with Sonderweg, (see below) “Sonderweg”
Lucy Davidowicz, “definitely had plans for the Holocaust by 1924.”
They believe that German opinion was against Jews, and they do not underestimate the important of Hitler and Nazi ideology. Intentionalists also argue that the chaos of the polycratic state was intentional in order to keep control. Hitler did not seem to be causing problems; therefore he rode on an increasingly big wave of popularity whilst the blame was pineed on his henchmen.
Access to the Fuehrer was vital, e.g., Himmler and Goering, and on the other hand, Darre. Obstacles that became problems were removed instantly and without problems, e.g. the Night of Long Knives in 1934.
Hitler's “authoritarian anarchy” was completely intentional.
Structuralists believe:
Also consider Hitler’s role but by splitting his power between areas he limited himself. Nazi regime evolved from circumstance and Hitler was indecisive and swayed by his henchmen. Hitler separated himself from the day to day running of the Nazi state, he was a "lazy ruler" only dealing with decisions on foreign policy, such as fighting the war.
Hans Mommsen, “Hitler was in some ways a ‘weak dictator’.”
Structuralists stress the Chaotic State idea. At beginning Hitler appeased elites within Germany. Leading Nazi officials held power not Hitler, as he is described as an inactive leader. Hitler was strictly limited by the German economy, military rearmament was breaking the economy.
Tim Mason, time for war was bought forward because of stresses on the economy. Brozat, focuses on the “administrative anarchy” Hitler’s inability to lead is natural. He loses control. Brozat also believes in Social Darwinism, the policy of survival of the fittest within the Nazi regime.
Mommsen, Hitler was a ”propagandist” his ideology was more influencing that his plans. “Hitler as just one extreme element of the malevolence that was Nazi Germany.” Structuralists do not deny Hitler’s centrality to the regime. Mommsen, “Was in some ways a weak dictator.”
Structuralists think that the order for the Holocaust came from lower echelons of the Nazi government, there was no written Fuhrer order and they agree that the Nazi state was Chaotic which supports this.
Structuralists believe in the “Veneer of unity” when describing the Nazi state. As under the seemingly smooth surface, they argue that it was chaos.
Kershaw Believes
Hitler’s power came from ‘charismatic domination.’ He had no effective opposition. He was able to generate an environment where those under him were all “working towards the Fuhrer.” Kershaw says thats Hitler did not get involved in the running of Nazi Germany. Hitler preferred personal loyalty above all but this made him a prisoner of his own ideas.
Kershaw analyses the nature of Hitler’s power, how he gained and used it. And how he was given free reign. Kershaw came up with the thesis of “Working towards the Fuehrer.” and focuses on Max Webbers “charismatic leadership.”
Kershaw believes Hitler to be a great opportunist, basically, he got lucky. His effective usage of propaganda was also vital.
Kershaw thinks that Hitler lacked a master plan, but was the driving force behind anti Semitism. The Holocaust idea came from both above and below. “Cumulative radicalisation.” The Nazi regime was run around the ‘Hitler Cult.’ Where even day to day Germans idolised him. Kershaw has also written that the Holocaust came as a shock to even high up Nazi's, Goebbels was surprised by the plans for the Holocaust. “The Fuehrer’s prophecy is coming true in a most terrible way.”
Kershaw stresses the difference of anti Semitism between the Nazis and the regular German public and believes Hitler to be an ‘unperson’ devoid of the ‘negative greatness’ Historian Fest describes him as.
“The road to Auschwitz was paved with indifference, not hatred’
All agree that Hitler encouraged anti-Semitism.
Sonderweg:
Sonderweg, or special path, is the idea that there is a path leading from the unification of Germany, through Bismarck, the Kaiser and on to Hitler.
What I think:
Hitler was not a weak dictator, his role was very central. It can be said the Nazi state was the Hitler state. This is supported by Intentionalists views. However when compared to Stalin, Hitler is clearly weaker and had a lot less control over the Nazi state that Stalin and the Soviet Union. They are strong to varying degrees. This is supported by Structuralists views.
Both sides and Kershaw agree that no one has held power the way Hitler had.
“The willingness and indeed eagerness, of Germans to “work toward the Fuehrer,” This was one of the greatest strengths of Hitler’s dictatorship. But by leading to confusion, disorder, and inefficiency, it was also one of its greatest weaknesses.”
I am an Intentionalist. Although I cannot clear cut my answer, I think Hitler was a strong dictator and the chaotic state was deliberate. However I do understand and agree with some Structuralist arguments.
So, NSG, now you have read all this, answer the 2 questions. Poll coming.
Ok, I am going to ask two questions.
1, Was the Nazi state chaotic?
2, Was Hitler a weak dictator?
There is no right or wrong here, as there is no way to prove of disprove this. There are 4 major schools of thought regarding these two questions.
Intentionalist, Structuralist/Functionalist, Kershaw 3rd way, and Sonderweg.
I will explain them under here, I have tried to make it easy and as short as possible.
Intentionalists believe:
Hitler was Central to the regime. His personality drives the Nazi ideology and he is a key figure whom determines the formation of Nazi Germany.
The infighting and “divide and rule” within the regime and his henchmen was deliberate to keep overall control.
Hitler was a key influence and made the big decisions.
Norman Rich, “The point cannot be emphasised too strongly. Hitler was the master in the Third Reich.” Intentionalists do not argue the administrative chaos, but believe that it is deliberate. Infighting was encouraged and success we dependent on this.
Hitler led German people with his prestige, rode on popularity.
“No subordinate of Hitler ever imposed his will, against the wishes of the Fuehrer.” “Any obstacle to Hitler’s will was removed.”
Hitler encouraged chaos within the Nazi state with the creation of more power hungry departments. Intentionalists strongly DENY that the failings of the economy limited Hitler. Hitler had planned his programme since the early 1920’s and his unwavering ideology was manifested in Nazi Germany policy. Albert Speer, Hitler was an “inexplicable demonic
figure.”
Intentionalists also believe that the Holocaust was part of the master plan. They also agree with Sonderweg, (see below) “Sonderweg”
Lucy Davidowicz, “definitely had plans for the Holocaust by 1924.”
They believe that German opinion was against Jews, and they do not underestimate the important of Hitler and Nazi ideology. Intentionalists also argue that the chaos of the polycratic state was intentional in order to keep control. Hitler did not seem to be causing problems; therefore he rode on an increasingly big wave of popularity whilst the blame was pineed on his henchmen.
Access to the Fuehrer was vital, e.g., Himmler and Goering, and on the other hand, Darre. Obstacles that became problems were removed instantly and without problems, e.g. the Night of Long Knives in 1934.
Hitler's “authoritarian anarchy” was completely intentional.
Structuralists believe:
Also consider Hitler’s role but by splitting his power between areas he limited himself. Nazi regime evolved from circumstance and Hitler was indecisive and swayed by his henchmen. Hitler separated himself from the day to day running of the Nazi state, he was a "lazy ruler" only dealing with decisions on foreign policy, such as fighting the war.
Hans Mommsen, “Hitler was in some ways a ‘weak dictator’.”
Structuralists stress the Chaotic State idea. At beginning Hitler appeased elites within Germany. Leading Nazi officials held power not Hitler, as he is described as an inactive leader. Hitler was strictly limited by the German economy, military rearmament was breaking the economy.
Tim Mason, time for war was bought forward because of stresses on the economy. Brozat, focuses on the “administrative anarchy” Hitler’s inability to lead is natural. He loses control. Brozat also believes in Social Darwinism, the policy of survival of the fittest within the Nazi regime.
Mommsen, Hitler was a ”propagandist” his ideology was more influencing that his plans. “Hitler as just one extreme element of the malevolence that was Nazi Germany.” Structuralists do not deny Hitler’s centrality to the regime. Mommsen, “Was in some ways a weak dictator.”
Structuralists think that the order for the Holocaust came from lower echelons of the Nazi government, there was no written Fuhrer order and they agree that the Nazi state was Chaotic which supports this.
Structuralists believe in the “Veneer of unity” when describing the Nazi state. As under the seemingly smooth surface, they argue that it was chaos.
Kershaw Believes
Hitler’s power came from ‘charismatic domination.’ He had no effective opposition. He was able to generate an environment where those under him were all “working towards the Fuhrer.” Kershaw says thats Hitler did not get involved in the running of Nazi Germany. Hitler preferred personal loyalty above all but this made him a prisoner of his own ideas.
Kershaw analyses the nature of Hitler’s power, how he gained and used it. And how he was given free reign. Kershaw came up with the thesis of “Working towards the Fuehrer.” and focuses on Max Webbers “charismatic leadership.”
Kershaw believes Hitler to be a great opportunist, basically, he got lucky. His effective usage of propaganda was also vital.
Kershaw thinks that Hitler lacked a master plan, but was the driving force behind anti Semitism. The Holocaust idea came from both above and below. “Cumulative radicalisation.” The Nazi regime was run around the ‘Hitler Cult.’ Where even day to day Germans idolised him. Kershaw has also written that the Holocaust came as a shock to even high up Nazi's, Goebbels was surprised by the plans for the Holocaust. “The Fuehrer’s prophecy is coming true in a most terrible way.”
Kershaw stresses the difference of anti Semitism between the Nazis and the regular German public and believes Hitler to be an ‘unperson’ devoid of the ‘negative greatness’ Historian Fest describes him as.
“The road to Auschwitz was paved with indifference, not hatred’
All agree that Hitler encouraged anti-Semitism.
Sonderweg:
Sonderweg, or special path, is the idea that there is a path leading from the unification of Germany, through Bismarck, the Kaiser and on to Hitler.
What I think:
Hitler was not a weak dictator, his role was very central. It can be said the Nazi state was the Hitler state. This is supported by Intentionalists views. However when compared to Stalin, Hitler is clearly weaker and had a lot less control over the Nazi state that Stalin and the Soviet Union. They are strong to varying degrees. This is supported by Structuralists views.
Both sides and Kershaw agree that no one has held power the way Hitler had.
“The willingness and indeed eagerness, of Germans to “work toward the Fuehrer,” This was one of the greatest strengths of Hitler’s dictatorship. But by leading to confusion, disorder, and inefficiency, it was also one of its greatest weaknesses.”
I am an Intentionalist. Although I cannot clear cut my answer, I think Hitler was a strong dictator and the chaotic state was deliberate. However I do understand and agree with some Structuralist arguments.
So, NSG, now you have read all this, answer the 2 questions. Poll coming.