Revision:Hitler - weak dictator or master of the third reich

Two main historical interpretations of the relationship between Hitler and the
Nazis.

Weak Dictator
 Structuralists; emphasis ‘intuitional anarchy’ of Nazi regime and
'leadership chaos'
 Argue Hitler was merely a puppet, a figurehead
 Polycratic chaotic government consequence of Hitler’s inability to
effectively direct government
 Social Darwinist ‘divide and rule’ (a term coined by 'intentionalists')
strategy resulted in time-wasting and bureaucracy
 Argue that whilst Hitler’s ideas were central to Nazism, they were
empowered and enforced by others
 Argue that under Hitler, Germany suffered
 Blame Hitler’s inaccessibility, reluctance to give policy directives or
even to document his ideas
 Structural limitations to Hitler’s power, as argued by Bracher.
 Many measures can be seen as responsive to pressure of events, and not
the result of long-term planning; Hitler reacted to events, rather then
creating them
 Night of the Long Knives was a response to pressure from business and
the army, not a predetermined strategy.
 Idea that Hitler was an ‘all-powerful dictator’ is straight out of Nazi
propaganda
 Hans Mommsen: “Hitler was just one extreme element of the extensive
malevolence that was the Nazi system”
 “Several powerful empires ran underneath Hitler”
 Preoccupied with self-image
  “Hitler Myth”, Kershaw – was the great vision of Hitler reality or simply
myth
 Built on fear
 Ultimately weak in that he relied on, albeit a very powerful, propaganda
machine, run by Goebbels, to provide a façade, a myth”
 Rosenthal: “Without Goebbels, there was no Hitler”

Master of the Third Reich

 Intentionalists; stress centrality of Nazi regime; importance of Hitler’s
personality, ideas and strength
 Alan Bullock “National Socialism can be called Hitlerism”
 Argue that Nazi policies predetermined by Hitler
 Key to power was access to Hitler; which explains the influence and
control of the three ‘lieutenants’; Goring, Goebbels and Himmler
 Party organisation based on the ‘Fuhrerprinzip’ – the principle of
leadership – whereby authority remained with Hitler, at all levels. The
same term is used by 'structuralists' to mean a different thing.
 Hitler removed himself from daily life to retain his prestigious image,
not out of weakness
 Truly charismatic speaker, could hold people’s attention for up to 6
hours

 
 Alan Bullock: “It’s not what Hitler said, it’s the way he said it”
 Corkery: “Hitler had the unique ability to persuade people”
 “Hitler uber Deutschland” 1931
 Norman Rich: “Hitler had a fixed plan from the Beer Hall Putsch to
death in his bunker in 1945”
 Jackel: “the essential political decisions were taken by a single
individual, by Hitler”
  Williams: “There was no effective institution which could depose him”

The Middle Way

 Kershaw: “Hitler’s force in Nazi politics was as such that calling him
“weak” is difficult to accept”; there are no examples of major policy
decisions by Hitler being successfully opposed by subordinates or the
Party
 Kershaw: “Nevertheless, his distant style of leadership and hesitancy
regarding critical decisions make it equally difficult to see him as a
“master” of Nazi Germany”
 To some extent, Hitler was a prisoner within the Nazi hierarchy, with
more active Nazi players interpreting Hitler’s will and anticipating his
desires. Kershaw calls this relationship “working towards the Fuhrer”.

Notes on ‘Hitler and Nazism’ by Jane Jenkins

 Foreign cartoonists ridiculed Hitler as an absurd little man
 Yet many accepted his ‘dictatorship’ and remained loyal to the end
 Germany appeared to be, on the surface, a one-party state under Hitler’s
sole rule
 His dictatorship was underpinned by an effective political apparatus
 Goebbels’ propaganda aimed at creating a Hitler myth, emphasizing his
political genius, generating great support and fortifying Hitler’s position
as all-powerful Fuhrer

 Hitler has been portrayed as a leader who dictated events and who
established ascendancy over all who came into contact with him. He was
regarded as the master of the Third Reich
 However, some historians disagree with this image, emphasizing a man
who was remote from public affairs
 Hans Mommsen, 1971: “Hitler was unwilling to take decisions,
frequently uncertain, exclusively concerned with upholding his prestige
and personal authority, influenced in the strongest fashion by his current
entourage, in some respects a weak dictator”
  Hitler did not actively intervene in government and his withdrawal made
the machinery of government slower and more chaotic, as the important
decisions were not taken
 Government disintegrated into competing personal empires; Goring,
Himmler and Goebbels
 Hitler became dispensable in this personal system; he rarely issued
written orders; fuelling the view that he was an inactive leader

 There are two approaches to viewing Hitler’s role in Nazi Germany;

the Intentionalist and the Structuralist 

 Intentionalists stress that the essential political decisions were taken by

Hitler. He was the prime force in domestic and foreign policy. So
important was the leadership principle that they equate Nazism with
Hitlerism.
 Intentionalist historians: Hugh Trevor-Roper, Alan Bullock, Jane
Jenkins, Bracher, Hildebrand, Jackel
 They stress the centrality of Hitler’s personality, ideas and strengths.
 Regard Hitler as having predetermined goals, especially in foreign
policy
 Saw hostility between rival groups as being resolved solely by the
Fuhrer
 Hitler as central to foreign and racial policy

 
 Structuralists stress the limitations on Hitler’s freedom of action as a
result of forces operating within the State. They argue that, under Hitler,
Nazi Germany suffered a leadership crisis. From the mid 1930s Hitler
 abandoned the normal business of government. He resorted to extreme
working methods and lifestyles, a development which was commented
upon by contemporaries.
 Structuralist historians: Hans Mommsen, Martin Brozat
 Saw Hitler as ‘weak’, failing to give clear planning and consistent
direction, leading to the collapse of ordered government and self-
destruction
 Emphasise ‘institutional’ anarchy and leadership chaos. Power was
distributed among many. Hitler’s own authority was only one important
element

 Hitler ruled through his trusted henchman but could not ignore his
dependence on the traditional elites
 A radical purge of the civil service would jeopardise this relationship
 The government cabinet did not operate, so the Reich Chancellery co-
ordinated events, although Hitler only made decisions when absolutely
necessary
 Hitler’s government can be described as ‘polycratic’, where his authority
was only one element
 However, Hitler still expected total loyalty and that all power rested with
him
 There are no examples of major policy decisions by Hitler being
successfully opposed by subordinates or the Party
 It would be misleading to view Hitler as a weak dictator

 Only about 12 people had easy access to Hitler at all times

 This ‘kitchen cabinet’ changed over the years but always included;
Goring, Himmler, Goebbels, Hess and Bormann.
 Hitler organised the Party, created its main ideology and masterminded
its campaign for power
 He was the dominant focal point and others accepted his dictatorship; he
demanded absolute obedience
  He also ensured his supremacy and unchallenged leadership by fostering
an anarchy of rivalries amongst leading Nazis
 Such rivalries enhanced Hitler’s own position as supreme arbiter
 Intentionalists argue that the government’s chaotic structure was merely
a result of Hitler’s ‘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
 Hess was assigned ‘deputy to the Fuhrer’ because he represented no
danger to Hitler
 Hitler’s purge of Rohm, leader of the SA, is the best example of how top
Nazi leaders, even ‘friends’, could be removed from power if posing a
threat

 
 Between 1933 and 1941 Hitler was 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
 Ian Kershaw argues that Hitler had three main functions: “to integrate
the many different and antagonistic groups, to mobilise the actions of his
subordinates and to legalise many of the barbaric actions taken by
subordinates”
 Hitler seized the opportunity in the 1930s as European diplomacy
collapsed. Hitler exploited the weakness of Europe and was central to the
collapse of international order
 Hitler’s non-interventionist style of leadership, born out of Social
Darwinist theories, has been misinterpreted as weak leadership
 The Nazi state would have collapsed if Hitler had died or been removed,
as he integrated the divergent Nazi groups
 The succession would ultimately have passed to the Army elites, who,
more Conservative in their ways, would have most likely began de-
Nazifying Germany