Amid the calamitous Weimar Republic of post World War I, Adolf Hitler planted the seeds of what would quickly become one of the most momentous manipulations of government. In just a few years, Hitler established himself as a political authority, and instilled Nazism, short for National Socialism, within Germany. This unprecedented ideology, which he called the European New Order, capitalized on a scattered and demoralized Germany. He initiated an authoritarian regime that would last a decade, ended only by a brutal world war. As Ian Kershaw explains in his essay on Nazi uniqueness, “a regime responsible for the most destructive war in history, leaving upwards of 40 million people dead . . . has an obvious claim to singularity” (239). Yet, the uniqueness of Nazism does not only lie in its genocidal intent. Its fascist ideals contribute to its intriguing nature, and, as a result, are a source of inspiration for countless authors.
Reactions are evident in the period of postmodern literature that emerged as a response to Hitler’s Reich. Because of the political messages within these, they greatly influenced society, and therefore have a place in the historical analysis of WWII. George Orwell, a political essayist and novelist, was a prominent luminary of these writings, and in his novel 1984, he attempts to explain the disastrous situation of the mid twentieth century and present a warning about the future. To do so, Orwell formulates a national socialist government, Big Brother, and an insurgent party member, Winston Smith. Though Winston begins as a rebellious citizen, he becomes an obedient subordinate because of his torture. His authority, Big Brother, is a powerful governmental entity that has supreme influence over him and his...
... middle of paper ...
...itical Essay on 1984." Novels for Students. Ed. Deborah A. Stanley. Vol. 7. Detroit: Gale, 1999. 245-48. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 8 Oct. 2013.
Gleason, Abbott. "'Totalitarianism' in 1984." Russian Review 43.2 (1984): 145-59. JSTOR. Web. 7 Oct. 2013.
Hitler, Adolf. Mein Kampf. Trans. Ralph Manheim. Boston: Houghton, 1971. Print.
Kershaw, Ian. "Hitler and the Uniqueness of Nazism." Journal of Contemporary History 39.2 (2004): 239-54. JSTOR. Web. 2 Nov. 2013.
Loewenstein, Prince Hubertus. "The Totalitarian State in Germany and the Individual." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 180: 26-30. JSTOR. Web. 2 Nov. 2013.
Lowenthal, David. "Orwell's Political Pessimism in 1984." Polity 2.2 (1969): 160-75. JSTOR. Web. 2 Nov. 2013.
Ward, James E. "Hitler's Reich Viewed from 1984." History Teacher 4.2 (1971): 25-33. JSTOR. Web. 7 Oct. 2013.
Gottfried, Ted, and Stephen Alcorn. Nazi Germany: The Face of Tyranny. Brookfield, CT: Twenty-First Century, 2000. Print.
The historical field concerning the Weimar Republic, Germany's parliamentary government during the interwar years, is not only an extremely sophisticated area of study, but an extremely competitive one as well. In the early eighties, a much heated and unprecedented scholarly dispute arose surrounding The Collapse of the Weimar Republic, written by David Abraham - at the time, a fledgling historian and assistant professor at Princeton University. Nazi seizure of power from the Weimar Republic has long intrigued scores of historians. Various models have been constructed in an attempt to explain how an entity such as the Nazi movement came to power over such an industrially, culturally, and socially advanced society such as Germany's (Notes from Jamie van Hook 2/14).
Fritzsche, Peter. Life and Death in the Third Reich. 1st Ed. ed. Cambridge, MA: Belknap of Harvard UP,
Hitler and the Nazi Party's Total Control Over the Lives of German People from 1933-1945
Shirer, William L. The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: a History of Nazi Germany. New York:
4. Fuchs, Thomas. A concise biography of Adolf Hitler. Berkley ed. New York: Berkley Books, 2000. Print.
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.
Howe, Irving, and George Orwell. 1984 Revisited Totalitarianism in Our Century. New York: Harper & Row, 1983.
The foreign policy of Nazi Germany between 1933 and 1945 was different than any other country during that era. Their distinct approach to ruling came from the nation’s many diverse philosophies. Furthermore, every basis of motivation and control came from the beliefs in which they so strictly followed. Many aspects, such as, communism, fascism, and nationalism, influenced these ideologies.
The Nazi regime, beginning in 1924 and moving through till 1945, accomplished the perversion of an entire peoples’ principle through the sustained and all-encompassing use of propaganda. Without outside influence the German people were exposed to an influx of Nazi co-ordinated information that perpetrated no views but their own; the acceptance of views by those around them prevented free-will through a semi-national belief in the ideology of one party.
Given the large sphere of influence the Nazi society has had on the present world, studying the outcomes of such restrictive policies leads us to a straight forward question of just how effective they were.
An overview of the Orwellian world of 1984 will give some context for comparison between what is happening in our world today, how it mirrors the situation in the novel, and the implications that it carries regarding what is happening within our society...
Gesink, Indira. "Fascism, Nazism and Road to WWII." World Civilizations II. Baldwin Wallace University. Marting Hall, Berea. 3 April 2014. Class lecture.
The year 1984 has long passed, but the novel still illustrates a possibility for the future of society. It still remains a powerful influence in all sorts of literature, music, and social theory. George Orwell envisioned a nightmarish utopia that could have very easily become a possibility in 1949 ? the year the novel was written. He managed to create such a realistic view of humanity?s future, that this story has been deemed timeless. There will always be the threat of totalitarianism, and at some moments civilization is only a step away from it. Orwell hated the thought of it, and 1984 shows that. From his work, readers who live in prevailing democratic society have a chance to consider about these very different political systems, democracy and totalitarianism.
“To what extent was Nazi Germany a Totalitarian state in the period from 1934 to 1939?”