Transcript Hitler: ‘master in the Third Reich’ or ‘weak dictator’?

Hitler: ‘master in
the Third Reich’
or ‘weak dictator’?
Debate
The issues
What is the role of the individual in
shaping the course of historical
development, as against the
limitations on the individual’s
freedom?
The issues
 Debate focuses on ‘whether the terrible
events of the Third Reich are chiefly to be
explained through the personality,
ideology, and will of Hitler, or whether the
Dictator himself was not at least in part a
(willing) ‘prisoner’ of forces, of which he
was the instrument rather than the
creator, and whose dynamic swept him
too along in its momentum’. Kershaw.
The historiography
The historiographical positions are graphically polarized
in the frequently-cited comment of American historian
Norman Rich – ‘the point cannot be stressed too
strongly: Hitler was master in the Third Reich’,
and in the diametrically opposed interpretation of
Hans Mommsen, of a Hitler ‘unwilling to take decisions,
frequently uncertain, exclusively concerned with
upholding his prestige and personal authority,
influenced by the strongest fashion by his current
entourage, in some aspects a weak dictator’.
Hitler’s power: an
evaluation
 What were Hitler’s ‘strengths’ and
‘weaknesses’ within the ‘overall power
constellation in the Third Reich?
Possible weaknesses (1)
 Hitler was ‘weak’ in the sense that he
regularly shirked making decisions, and
was compelled to do so in order to
protect his own image and prestige,
dependent upon the Fuhrer remaining
outside factional politics and
unassociated with mistaken or unpopular
decisions.
Possible weaknesses (2)
 Hitler could be regarded as ‘weak’ if it
could be shown that his decisions were
ignored, watered-down, or otherwise not
properly implemented by his
subordinates.
Possible weaknesses (3)
 It might be claimed that Hitler was ‘weak’
in that his scope for action, his
manoeuvrability, was preconditioned and
limited by factors outside his control but
immanent to the ‘system’, such as the
demands of the economy or fear of social
unrest.
Chaos in government
 No fundamental disagreement over the
fact that the government of Nazi
Germany was chaotic in structure. The
fragmentation and lack of co-ordination in
the internal spheres of authority can be
aptly depicted as ‘chaotic’. The question
is, what significance should be attached
to this chaos?
Intentionalist
 The confused lines of authority in the
Third Reich was a reflection of a
calculated policy of ‘divide and rule’.
 This was testimony of Hitler’s pivotal role,
his real power and his preconceived
planning with a view to carrying out his
long-term objectives.
v. ‘structuralist’
 The confused nature of government was
the inevitable product of Hitler’s
charismatic leadership.
 Hitler rejected the institutional and
bureaucratic norms necessary for
‘rational’ government of a modern state in
favour of dependence on personal loyalty
as the basis of authority.
‘Structuralist’
 Used propaganda to avoid any harmful
inroads into the prestige and image of the
Fuhrer and needed to remain aloof from
interference in internal conflicts.
 A lack of clear, rational ‘middle-range’
policies and a diminishing sense of
reality all promoted instability of the
political system and led to negative goals
and cumulative radicalization.
‘structuralist’
 Hitler’s personal scope for action was
limited by the continued existence of
other, real – if fluctuating – centres of
power.
Your job
 Evaluate the evidence for how Nazi Germany was run
and decide which side of the debate you find most
convincing.
You will investigate:
 Hitler’s personality – the ‘Hitler myth’
 How decisions were taken in Nazi Germany.
 The way in which policies were carried out – were they
intentional, or a case of cumulative radicalisation?
 Rival centres of power in the Third Reich e.g.
traditional power structures; the Nazi Party; the SS and
Gestapo