To what extent was Hitler a ‘weak dictator’?
The debate as to whether Hitler was a ‘weak dictator’ or ‘Master of the Third Reich’ is one that has been contested by historians of Nazi Germany for many years and lies at the centre of the Intentionalist – Structuralist debate. On the one hand, historians such as Bullock, Bracher, Jackel and Hildebrand regard Hitler’s personality, ideology and will as the central locomotive in the Third Reich. Others, such as Broszat, Mason and Mommsen argue that the regime evolved out from pressures and circumstances rather than from Hitler’s intentions. They emphasise the institutional anarchy of the regime as being the result of Hitler’s ‘weak’ leadership. The most convincing standpoint is the synthesis of the two schools, which acknowledges both Hitler’s centrality in explaining the essence of Nazi rule but also external forces that influenced Hitler’s decision making. In this sense, Hitler was not a weak dictator as he possessed supreme authority but as Kershaw maintains, neither was he ‘Master of the Third Reich’ because he did not exercise unrestricted power.
Within Nazi government, Hitler acted as the final source of authority, which serves as evidence against the notion that Hitler was ‘weak’. Having consolidated power by 1934 Hitler was, at least theoretically, omnipotent, being Chancellor, Head of State and “supreme judge of the nation”. However, the notion that Nazi government systematically pursued the clear objectives of the Fuhrer is challenged by the reality of Nazi government structure. It has been widely accepted by historians that the Nazi State was a chaotic collection of rival power blocs. Mommsen’s explanation that this was the result of Hitler’s apathy towards government a...
... middle of paper ...
...versity Press, 2001
Hinton and Hite, Weimar and Nazi Germany, Hodder Education, 200, p.184
Housden, Martyn, Hitler: A weak dictator?, 2002, essay
Johnson, Eric, The Nazi Terror, Basic Books, 1991
Kershaw, Ian:
The 'Hitler Myth': Image and Reality in the Third Reich, Oxford Pap erbacks, 2001
The Nazi Dictatorship, Bloomsbury Academic, 2000
Layton, Geoff, Germany: The Third Reich 1933-1945, Hodder Murray, 2005
Lee, Stephen J., European Dictatorships 1918-1945, Routledge, 1999
McDonough, Frank, Hitler and Nazi Germany, Cambridge University Press, 1999
Noakes and Pridham, Nazism 1919-1945: A Documentary Reader, Exeter, 1983
Overy, Richard, The Dictators: Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia, Penguin, 2005
Von Manstein, Eric, Lost victories, TBS The Book Service Ltd, 2004
Williamson, David, Was Hitler a Weak Dictator?, History Review, March 2002, article
Gottfried, Ted, and Stephen Alcorn. Nazi Germany: The Face of Tyranny. Brookfield, CT: Twenty-First Century, 2000. Print.
This investigation will address the research question, to what extent was Germany’s post-World War I economic depression a causal factor in Hitler’s rise to power from 1919 to 1934? With the Treaty of Versailles, the German government was required to pay 132 billion gold marks of war reparations, drastically worsened with the US Wall Street crash. This effectively crippled the German economy and created a desperate people. For this investigation, Hitler’s private life history and pre-military career will not be analyzed. His political rise will be examined from the perspective of economic and social factors. Several primary sources will be explored, including the Hitler’s Mein Kampf and Hitler’s 25-Point Program. In addition, tertiary sources covering Hitler’s non-personal life and rise to power will be studied.
Hitler was furious with Germany’s surrender in World War I, so when he got back to his home in Munich, he was determined to enter politics and become the greatest leader in German history (Smith). He spent all of his time and effort trying to become the chancellor of Germany. Once he was voted into being chancellor, he needed a way to become the leader of all of Germany. Hitler gathered power through many acts of t...
German foreign policy during the Third Reich is a great source of great debate. Many historians agree that Hitler did make the big decisions of foreign policy after 1933. However, the disagreement occurs when discussing the extent which the foreign policy was derived from Hitler’s own “ideological pre-possessions and programme” (356). According to the structuralists, the foreign policy emphasized expansion and contained unclear and unspecific aims. This was due to the “uncontrollable dynamism and radicalizing momentum of the Nazi movement and governmental system” (353). Hitler’s foreign policy stressed his image and ideological fixations, not his direct intervention and initiative. Hitler is seen as an opportunist who makes spur-of-the-moment decisions, rather than a man with a concrete plan (354).
as a historian it is clear that in the years of 1941 and 1942 things
Hitler wasn’t always a dictator of Germany, in fact; he never wanted to be in the army in the first place. But in spite of what he wanted he started off as a young soldier, and often rebelled because of the mixed ...
Support for the Nazi party was due to the growing belief that it was a
Studying history through his lens of objectivism, Taylor’s theory is that Hitler’s design wasn’t one of world domination; rather his methods, especially his foreign policies, didn’t differ from his predecessors. However, when confronted with a strict policy of appeasement, by both the French and the English, the stage was set for a second World War. Taylor constructs a powerful and effective argument by expelling certain dogmas that painted Hitler as a madman, and by evaluating historical events as a body of actions and reactions, disagreeing with the common idea that the Axis had a specific program from the start.
Centuries later and the name Adolf Hitler still rings volumes till this present day: discussed in history books, talked about amongst intellects and commoners alike, and despised by many for years to come. Upon hearing his name many may think of all the negative things Hitler has done, but few fail to analyze just how one man created such controversy amongst a nation without being stopped. The question then lies how does a man reign over country and devastate it for years to come? Adolf Hitler, a man who excelled in persuasion and charisma was able to reign over Germany for years. Born in Austria April 20th 1889, Hitler grew up with many hardships in his life.
]Haffner, is a book which is hard to define. Only 165 pages long, Haffner has crammed more relevant information into this book than many twice its length. He observes Hitler's roller coaster ride through life and the country that he eventually took along. From Hitler's private life to the complete betrayal of Germany, Haffner evaluates the conditions and impetus for Hitler's accomplishments and failures. These include not only Hitler's psyche, but also the political arena of post World War I Europe.
Every person has their own opinion on Adolf Hitler, but some do believe he was a good man. He did very terrible things that didn’t even need to be done, and ruined many lives. I have always wondered what could lead Adolf Hitler to want to do such terrible things to such innocent people and destroy so many lives. Only serial killers could find joy in killing a person because it gives them a rush. Once they feel that rush they want to feel it again and again. That’s what leads them to keep going and doing it over and over. Hitler’s mind was like a serial killers mind. He was so okay with going into other countries and destroying them and killing whoever came in his way. What does that have anything to do with the Jews? They were simple people just living their lives and he needed a target to make his campaign stronger. A Psychopath would kill 6 million Jews to make sure they can have what they
Hitler had a lot to do with Germany and he was remembered but not because of anything positive, but because he was one of the worst coldhearted dictators Germany or the world could’ve experienced. My view and Topic is worth consideration by the reader because it will inform them more about Hitler’s actions in 1933 and so on.
MODERN HISTORY – RESEARCH ESSAY “To what extent was Nazi Germany a Totalitarian state in the period from 1934 to 1939?” The extent to which Nazi Germany was a totalitarian state can be classed as a substantial amount. With Hitler as Fuhrer and his ministers in control of most aspects of German social, political, legal, economical, and cultural life during the years 1934 to 1939, they mastered complete control and dictation upon Germany. In modern history, there have been some governments, which have successfully, and others unsuccessfully carried out a totalitarian state. A totalitarian state is one in which a single ideology is existent and addresses all aspects of life and outlines means to attain the final goal, government is run by a single mass party through which the people are mobilized to muster energy and support.
Historians are often divided into categories in regard to dealing with Nazi Germany foreign policy and its relation to Hitler: 'intentionalist', and 'structuralist'. The intentionalist interpretation focuses on Hitler's own steerage of Nazi foreign policy in accordance with a clear, concise 'programme' planned long in advance. The 'structuralist' approach puts forth the idea that Hitler seized opportunities as they came, radicalizing the foreign policies of the Nazi regime in response. Structuralists reject the idea of a specific Hitlerian ideological 'programme', and instead argue for an emphasis on expansion no clear aims or objectives, and radicalized with the dynamism of the Nazi movement. With Nazi ideology and circumstances in Germany after World War I influencing Nazi foreign policy, the general goals this foreign policy prescribed to included revision of Versailles, the attainment of Lebensraum, or 'living space', and German racial domination. These foreign policy goals are seen through an examination of the actions the Nazi government took in response to events as they happened while in power, and also through Hitler's own ideology expressed in his writings such as Mein Kempf. This synthesis of ideology and social structure in Germany as the determinants of foreign policy therefore can be most appropriately approached by attributing Nazi foreign policy to a combination as both 'intentionalist' and 'structuralist' aims. Nazi foreign policy radicalized with their successes and was affected by Hitler pragmatically seizing opportunities to increase Nazi power, but also was based on early a consistent ideological programme espoused by Hitler from early on.
I believe that there are three main character traits that define a good leader; their ability to move a nation with their speeches, their ability to think about and plan for the future of their people and nation, and their ability to be able to command the nation 's forces correctly. All good and well defining character traits that I believe that Adolf Hitler possessed when he came to power in Germany during January 1933.