Liam Tarry

THE ROLE OF THE INDIVIDUAL IN HISTORY ADOLF HITLER

Good morning ladies and gentlemen. My name is Liam Tarry, and I am here today to
talk to you about the role of the individual in history.
Now there is a common assumption that great individuals are the dominant influence
on historical change. Most people, myself included, believe history without Joan of
Arc, Henry VIII, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or Mussolini would be dull, and theyd
be right, as the cult of the personality is central to all recorded history.
Although the Greek and Roman Empires linked their greatest periods with great
leaders, the stress on the power of the individual reached new levels in the 20th
century, as dictatorships of the left and right elevated their leaders to an almost godlike status. Hence, the myth of individuals rising above society to shape the course of
history is pervasive and based on two counter assumptions.
First, the actions of leaders can be taken in isolation that they did it by themselves
the power of the individual.
And second, leaders are the products of a particular society, represent powerful
social groups and are subject to uncertain economic conditions.
To take a couple of examples, the fate of Tsar Nicholas in the 1917 Revolution can
be linked to Russia's abysmal display in the 'Great War'.
Equally, the rise and fall of Bismarck can be put down to existing power brokers in
the German monarchy and aristocracy.
Nevertheless, the role of individuals in history has provoked enormous debate. This
has revolved around the best way to present their role within history.
So, my talk today for you, ladies and gentlemen will give you an insight about the
role of the individual in history, and I will show you how modern-day historians have
interpreted these sentiments. Can history be explained purely through an individual,
or are other factors at play? And I will do this by focusing on a specific individual
and thats Adolf Hitler.
So, to begin with, can we have a show of hands, who here has studied Hitler and the
rise of the Nazis?
ASK FOR HANDS
I am historian who is very passionate about the rise of the Nazis, about how one
political group which lasted for 13 years, and one man still overshadows centuries of
German history.
So lets begin, shall we?

THE ROLE OF THE INDIVIDUAL

The public loves biographies more than any other kind of history. This fascination
with biography began in the Victorian age. In those days, biographies were mostly
written by people with an intimate knowledge of and love for their subject. The result
was a vision of the individual written through rose coloured spectacles.
As I have said, the role of the individual in history has long been debated through
time, in that history can be largely explained by the impact of great men, or heroes
highly influential individuals who, due to either their personal charisma, intelligence,
wisdom, or political skill, utilized their power in a way that had a decisive historical
impact. This is known as THE GREAT MAN THEORY.
This theory of the great man has been around for centuries.
It was first popularized in the 1840s by the Scottish writer and historian Thomas
Carlyle. For Carlyle, the chaotic events of the French Revolution depended on what
he called 'heroes' to take control over the competing forces erupting within French
society at the time. While he did not deny the importance of economic and practical
explanations for the revolution, he saw these forces as simply 'spiritual' that the
hopes and aspirations of ordinary French people took the form of ideas, transformed
into ideologies. In Thomas Carlyle's view, it was dynamic individuals that mastered
the events of the French Revolution.
But 20 years later, the English philosopher Herbert Spencer formulated a counterargument that has remained influential throughout the 19th century to today; he
believed that attributing historical events to the decisions of individuals was a
hopelessly primitive, childish, and unscientific. He believed that the men Carlyle
called "great" were merely products of their social environment. Spencer said that
such great men, these special individuals were the products of their societies, and
that their actions would be impossible without the social conditions built before their
lifetimes.
So who is right? Carlyle or Spencer? Essentially the founders of the intentionalist
and structuralist school of thought.
So lets explore these 2 competing themes with our man Adolf Hitler.
The historiography of Nazi Germany is extensive. Historians and researchers have
written millions of words about the Nazi regime, its leaders, its causes and the
society it created. Historians who specialise in Nazi Germany have focused on many
questions or issues.
What motivated Hitler and what shaped his views, values and decision-making?
To what extent did Hitler wield absolute power over both the Nazi Party and
Germany?
Was Hitlers leadership and decision-making based on a master plan, or did he
make decisions spontaneously and erratically?

Were World War II and the Holocaust part of Hitlers long-term plan or did they
occur because of changing factors?
HITLER
The rise of Hitler has long been studied.
A corporal in the First World War, Hitlers rise feeds in to the sentiment in Germany at
the time. Humiliated in defeat, the harsh reparations imposed upon Germany after
the Treaty of Versailles fuelled the view that Germany had been stabbed in the back
by unpatriotic, weak politicians. He, and many people, loathed the new Weimar
Republic. When hyperinflation ruined the middle classes, and later the Great
Depression, Hitler appealed to those who longed for a strong leader. He was seen as
the man of the people, a tough, political genius who would solve the economic,
political problems facing Germany in 1933. People voted for him because he would
restore order, and throw off the humiliation of the Treaty of Versailles.
But how much of this is true?
Different historians have used different approaches and theories to address these
questions.
Sometimes this has led to debate, even heated argument between historians.
One of the leading historians to address these questions was Timothy Mason, who
coined the terms intentionalism and functionalism. Both offer explanations about
the nature of political power, the extent of planning, the organisation of the Nazi
regime and the role Hitler played in decision-making.
Intentionalist historians argue that Hitler was a very powerful ruler who operated in
line with a master plan'; it was always his intention to start a war in Europe and
exterminate European Jews. Conversely, functionalism suggested that Hitlers power
in the Nazi Party was over-stated and that he had no long-term plan. Instead, Hitler
was an opportunist who made decisions expediently and spontaneously, often to
maintain his own grip on power. Both arguments hark back to Carlyle and Spencers
ideas.
In my opinion, both arguments hold sway.
Lets look at Hitler through internationalist eyes.
INTENTIONALIST
Firstly, The 25 Points, co-written by Hitler in 1920, became the partys guide book;
Mein Kampf became its Bible.
Hitler stated, quite clearly
1.
We want all Germans to live in a "Greater Germany" [2]
2.
We want Germany to be treated the same as other nations, and we want the

peace treaties of Versailles to be cancelled.

3.
We want land and territory (colonies) to feed our people and to settle our
surplus population.
Before Hitler, the Deutsche Arbeitpartei (DAP) had been no different than any
number of right-wing nationalist clubs. Within a year the Austrian newcomer had
taken control of the party; within three years he was planning an ambitious and illfated attempt to seize control of Bavaria. Another decade and the Nazi Party held the
reins of national power, largely on the back of Hitlers oratory, charisma,
determination and personal intensity.
Intentionalist historians believe that from 1933, Hitler had extensive power within the
NSDAP and over the German nation. Karl Dietrich Bracher, for instance, describes
the Nazi leader as the master of the Third Reich. Though he acknowledges the
Nazi state was less organised than outward appearances suggest, Bracher believes
this was largely due to Hitler, who intentionally created multiple departments and
encouraged competing interests. He did this to divide and rule, enhancing his own
power by distracting those who might covet it.
Bracher and other intentionalists like Eberhard Jackel and Lucy Dawidowicz also
believe that Nazi anti-Semitism was derived from Hitlers own personal hatreds.
These scholars suggest the Nuremberg Laws, Nazi pogroms like Kristallnacht and
the Holocaust itself all directly flowed from Hitlers hatred of Jews and other Nazis
pandering to them.
All historians are correct. Hitler was instrumental in pandering to big business. He
often met with them to ask for financial support for his election campaigns he
secured over 3 million marks in 1932, for example. In power, Hitler understood that
the army was the one institution that could remove him from power either by army
leaders appealing to Hindenburg to remove him from office or by the use of force.
As such, Hitler often went to dinner with Kurt Von Hammerstein, the armys
commander in chief, to outline his plans for rearmament, whilst clearly stating he
would not undermine the armys role as the most important institution in the state.
To reach the people, Hitler, together with Goebbels quickly took control of the
nation's radio, from which they had for so long been barred (and which their
adversaries had put to only mediocre use). Within a few weeks, they had succeeded
in making radio their most effective tool. Each of Hitler's major speeches was
broadcast to the nation with a hitherto unknown power.
Enforcement of the law was the responsibility of the police. In the Weimar Republic,
it was separate state authorities which controlled the police forces across Germany.
Hitler did not abolish these police forces, but created a system of party-controlled,
political police forces only answerable to him. This proliferation of police forces
created confusion and competition between the forces and the powerful men that
controlled them.
The SS controlled by Himmler

The SA controlled by Ernst Rohm

The Gestpo the secret state police force, of which Goring was the ministerpresident.
Between 1933 and 1936, there was competition between these three men for
control.
With the rise in attacks on political opponents of the Nazis by the SA, the
brownshirts, Hitler put a stop to it, ruthlessly purging the SA in June 1934, the Night
of the Long Knives. The SS, acting on Hitlers direct orders, eliminated the
leadership of the SA. Hitler accepted full responsibility for the executions, acting, he
said, on the supreme judge of the German people, who was compelled to act to
save the country from an SA coup.
He directly ordered the Anschluss with Austria in March 1938, annexed the
Sudentenland 6 months later, and the invasion of Poland in September 1939.
So what about the Holocaust? The intentionalist school is made up of those who are
convinced that the Nazis\Hitler "intended" to kill the Jews at some relatively early
point in time (here historians may differ as to exactly when that point was reached)
and that he proceeded along the road to Auschwitz in a carefully planned and
premeditated fashion. Some, such as Lucy Dawidowicz, say that Hitler saw World
War II as the perfect opportunity to implement his plan, but that it had been on his
mind for up to twenty years prior to when it actually happened. Andreas Hillgruber
often refers to speeches from the Nuremburg Trials, where he quotes Hitler and
claims that the genocide never would have happened if it werent for Hitler.
In War, Hitler was instrumental too, making some key decisions, many of which were
horrible blunders. He ordered the invasion of Russia, issuing a no retreat order. He
declared war on the USA, he ordered the bombing of British cities, he decreed that
no women were to do factory work, depriving the army of munitions. I could go on
but Hitler meddled, to the frustration of his generals.
FUNCTIONALIST
But can all of this be attributed to Hitler?
The leading historian of recent times is Ian Kershaw, who has penned several books
on Nazism. Kershaw is primarily a functionalist: he has a largely negative view of
Hitlers rule. Kershaw sees the fuhrer as a lazy dictator who possessed absolute
power but lacked the energy or attention to use it much.
For example, he says that Hitler did not work long hours, loathed paperwork and had
no interest in overseeing projects in any detail. He was reactive and unable to
produce new ideas, relying instead on advisors and acolytes in his inner circle. In
this interpretation, much of the Nazi transformation which occurred in Germany in the
mid- and late-1930s was not the work of Hitler, but of others working towards the
fuhrer in other words, doing what they believed he would want them to do.

He did indeed surround himself with individuals who competed with each other to
gain his attention and implement his wishes. He supplied the vision, and his
ministers and officials interpreted it and turned it into detailed policies. The discipline
and unity of the Nazi regime were essentially dishonest facades. Internally, Nazi
Germany was a confused storm of competing individuals and groups: government
departments, the SS, the military and the NSDAP leadership. It was this competition
and tension that shaped most Nazi government decisions.
Far from working hard, we know that Hitler liked to spend his days eating and
walking in his retreats. He often used to stay up late watching films and wouldnt rise
until the afternoon - his generals were afraid to wake him on the morning of D-day,
for example. We know that he disliked reading official documents and rarely got
involved in detailed discussions on domestic policy his officials had great difficulty
in getting him to make decisions.
Kershaw is also a proponent of the Hitler myth. He contends that the Nazi leaders
political brilliance and charisma were public perceptions rather than inherent traits.
The political and economic turmoil of the 1920s and early 1930s helped to feed a
collective view that Germany needed a national saviour, a political strong man with
a captivating personality and strength of will. The Nazi leaders oratory, which at
other times in history would have struggled to attract an audience, thrust him into the
public spotlight.
At no time up to 1933, did the Nazi Party win a majority of votes at elections. They
may have been the largest political party in 1933, but they did not have a majority of
support among the people. Therefore, those who had supported the Nazis needed to
be informed on how correct their choice was with an emphasis on the strength of the
party and the leadership. Those who opposed the Nazi Party had to be convinced
that it was pointless continuing with their opposition. The fact that Goebbels had so
much power is indicative of how important Hitler thought it was to ensure that the
people were won over or intimidated into accepting Nazi rule.
Ordinary Germans began to see Hitler as a man for the times. They also projected
their own hopes, fears and ambitions onto Hitler. The Nazi leader thus became many
things to many people. NSDAP propaganda tapped into this, portraying him in many
ways, some of them contradictory. Hitler was portrayed as the Teutonic warrior who
would crush the enemies of Germany then the kind and fatherly protector of
women and children. He could pledge to uphold the rights and conditions of German
workers while promising industrial moguls profits, prosperity and increased
production. The image of Hitler as a charismatic, omnipotent saviour was conceived
as a fiction, Kershaw writes, then sold to minds that craved the idea.
When it comes to the holocaust, Intentionalists hold that the Holocaust was the result
of a long-term master plan on the part of Hitler, Hitler being the driving force behind
tragedy. The intentionalist view was the first to arise, flourishing post war in the late
1950s and early 1960s. Intentionalists like Lucy Dawidowicz (1981) and Daniel
Goldhagen (1997) argue that the Holocaust was planned by Hitler from the very
beginning of his political career, at very least from the early 1920s.

Structuralists stress that the Nazi anti-Semitic policy was constantly evolving in ever
more radical directions developing through the increasing radicalization of the Nazi
regime and the influence the Second World War; The Holocaust was the end
product. The perception is that Hitlers ideas were not very coherent; he was much
more of an opportunist. Structuralists like Hans Mommsen (1991) and Martin Broszat
(1981) hold that the Holocaust was started in 1941-1942 as a result of the failure of
the Nazi deportation policy and the impending military losses in Russia.
Structuralists draw on the intuitional anarchy of Nazi regime and 'leadership chaos.
In contrast, my view is an amalgamation of both Intentionalist and Structuralist
theories. I believe that that the holocaust was a consequence of the coalescence of
Nazi racial policy and a response to the circumstances induced by the war. This view
is argued by Kershaw argues that a combination of Hitlers fanatical racial ideology
and other external factors leas to the attempted annihilation of the Jewish population.
Intentionalists not only stress Hitlers anti-Semitic speeches and literature as a basis
of annihilation but also emphasize the role of pre-existing anti-Semitism in German
and European society. Daniel Goldhagen argues that ordinary Germans were willing
participants in the Holocaust, which he claims had its roots in a deep eliminationist
German anti-Semitism. Most other historians have disagreed with Goldhagen's
thesis, arguing that while anti-Semitism undeniably existed in Germany, Goldhagen's
idea of a uniquely German "eliminationist" anti-Semitism is untenable.
, for me, I believe it was a combination of factors which offer the most plausible and
logical reasoning behind the holocaust; I do not see the holocaust as a result of
Hitlers long held grand design. There is no doubt that Hitler was fiercely Anti-Semitic
however, I believe that the holocaust was the result of a combination of timing and
events which Hitler used opportunistically to carry out his own ideology. In Mein
Kampf Hitler repeatedly states his inexorable hatred of the Jewish people, but nowhere does he proclaim his intention to exterminate the Jewish people; the events
that occurred between 1933 and 1941 coincided with a gradual growth in harshness
and hostilities, undermining the intentionalist argument and promoting the idea of
circumstantial reaction. The statement is a limited assessment of the causation and
origins of the holocaust as it focuses solely on the role of Hitler and his personal
ideology and deep rooted plans. The existence of background anti-Semitism in
Europe, the role of propaganda, Hitlers ideology and the competitive polycratic
nature of state as well as failure of policies like emigration and the impending losses
in the War are all part of a synthesised cause of the Holocaust.
The Israeli historian Otto Dov Kulka has praised Kershaws concept of "working
towards the Fhrer" as the best way of understanding how the Holocaust occurred.
This view demonstrates both Hitlers central role in the "Final Solution" and why
there was no need for any order from Hitler for the Holocaust to occur, as the
progress that led to the event was "worked out" toward the Fhrer by almost the
entire German population. Therefore the holocaust did not just stem from Hitlers
fierce anti-Semitic ideas but from a range of other interconnected factors, all
cohering in the mass genocide that was the Final Solution.

ANALYSIS
But what I am sure of, is that the role of the individual in history is complex.
So when analysing the role of the individual, indeed any individual in history, it is very
important to weigh up both internationalist and functionalist arguments to come to a
conclusion. This can be done by using what is known as the factor of situation.
Here the word situation emphasizes that the intensity of the individual's role is not a
constant but a variable determined by a combination of objective circumstances and
personal features in particular historical place and time. In a different moment the
value of this variable would be different.
1)
features of the environment where the individual acts (traditions, social
system characteristics, goals of society, etc) When it comes to Hitler, there was a
long tradition of strong leaders in Germany, harking back to the middle ages, to
Bismark and Kaiser Wilhelm. The German people loved a ruler.
2)
the state of society at a definite moment (stable, unstable, progressing,
declining, etc.); There is no doubt that the unstable economic and social conditions
in Weimar Germany helped escalate his rise to power.
3)
characteristic features of surrounding societies; Germany felt hard done by by
the Treaty of Versailles, and people yearned for a strong nation again.
4)
the degree to which the moment is favorable for respective actions; There
was a fear of another world war in Europe, and Hitler was appeased. He was given
free reign to rearm, to enter Austria and the Sudentenland. Remember Neville
Chamberlain coming back to Britain and declaring Peace in our time
5)
personal properties of the individual in question For Hitler, he was seen as
dynamic, energetic and forceful, in contrast to the uncharismatic, weak politicians of
the Weimar years. As Ive stated, Hitler was seen as a guardian of traditional morality
and popular justice, whilst a man of peace and a statesmen of true genius.
6)
whether the historical moment in question need just some definite personal
properties. Again, Hitler was seen as the man to throw off the humiliation of the
Treaty of Versailles.
7)
The presence of sufficient social, political, military and etc forces Hitler did
indeed change the map of Europe between 1939 and 45 due to his rapid
rearmament program in the 1930s.
8)
the presence of competitive persons; Intentionalists argue that the
governments chaotic structure was merely a result of Hitlers divide and rule
strategy. Even the top Nazis of the inner guard were not immune; Goring was
denied access to Hitler and ignored in policy discussions after 1941 and Heydrich

was sent to Prague when they became too powerful

The above mentioned factors are indeed random, as their importance may vary in
different cases. If, for example, the individuals influence on the whole mankind is
considered then the characteristic features of surrounding societies, the moment in
time and the personal properties are especially important. But all can be used when
examining the importance of the individual.
For Hitler as an individual, I go along with the intentionalist view of history between
Between 1933 and 1941 Hitler was so central to the regime and certain
developments would not have happened without his authority; the SS would not
have developed on the large scale that it did and Germany would not have gone to
war, as war was unpopular with the Army and top Nazis such as Goring. When it did
go to war, Hitler meddled. Yet the functionalist argument holds sway with regard to
the way he operated, surrounding themselves with other individuals and creating
competition with one another.
Hitler ruled through his trusted henchmen, but he could not ignore his dependence
on the traditional elites who ruled over the army, civil service, and judiciary sector
basically on his own behalf
By means of a polycratic government, Hitlers personal authority was only one
element amongst this complex Nazi power structure
Hitler expected total loyalty and all power rested with him at the end of the day
BOTH accept that there was a certain degree of chaos in the Nazi state; BOTH
agree that Hitler was a central figure within it.
So what is the role of the individual in history?
Great people do not appear by chance but by historical necessity, when the
corresponding objective conditions are ripe. Outstanding political figures, leaders of
the people, come to the fore in a period of radical revolutionary changes in society,
very great political actions and popular uprisings. Men of genius appear in science
most often when production requires some great scientific discovery. Great artists,
as a rule, display their talent at the most significant turning points in history.
Moreover, a talented person will go down in history only if his talent, character and
intellect are needed by society at a given stage of its development.
Lenin wrote that the working class, which all over the world is waging a hard and
persistent struggle for complete emancipation, needs authorities (2). [.] All
historical development shows that however great an individual is, he is incapable of
determining the course of history. It is the people who make history and social
revolutions and produce all the material and spiritual wealth of mankind.
I believe that if history is to remain a living and breathing subject it must show why
the past has significance in the present, beyond mere nostalgia and triviality. And
thats why the role of the individual in history cannot be ignored.